Topic awaiting preservation: Jesus Requires Genesis

I was taught in school that Genisis was designed to be taken as a story passed down generation to generation.

But I have recently been told that if Genisis in not true this makes the rest of the bible crumble.

How do you who have faith think on this? Are there examples to support this?

Dan @ Code Town

It certainly wouldn't make it crumble.

There are many people who view it this way.

Obviously there is no one single way to look at it - if you are a personal who beleives in a literal interpretation of the bible, then obviously the account of genesis will be of more importance to you than if you beleive in the message over the details...

Of course, to those who believe in a literal interpretation, no amount of factual evidence will convince them that genesis could be anything but absolute fact...so there's no danger of anything crumbling anyway

Actually, belief in Genesis disproves Jesus as a messiah, and vice versa.

This has been previously discussed.

Of course, as mentioned, there are those who really don't care if something makes sense or not - they will believe irregardless.

What about the idea of savation? If we look at biological evolution, why there would be a salvation in first place? Salvation from what? Original Sin? what sin?

It always puzzled me people who are christians and accept biological evolution...

So if we remove the idea of original sin and damnation, why would there be a salvation in first place?

Plus as Shaman suggests, according to the Jews (the writters and bearers of OT) simply show that Jesus doesnt fit on the idea of messiah.

*shrugs*



(Edited by Ruski on 08-10-2005 18:04)

So it is the same old, same old.

I just need to keep my mouth shut, and not discuss any of this stuff in the real world.

Dan @ Code Town

I think there's a lot of room with which to interpret genesis, we've got 30 some odd verses describing a creation that's since had thousands of books written about it. It wasn't meant to be a science lesson or an intensely technical description. Genesis doesn't have to be taken purely literally either, many other books in the bible are poetic or prophetic in nature. Believing a 7-day creation, etc., isn't necessary in order to believe in God.

WS, planning to do some more looking on the Jewish prophecy mentioned in the other thread, interesting stuff. I did miss the Genesis/disproving Christ dicussion though, can you point me towards the specific posts?

Ruski, i'm sort of following you, though belief in evolution per se doesn't disprove Genesis IMO. There's an interesting take on this in The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder that i need to re-read in order to do it justice dealing with the language used in Genesis where God deals with Adam, etc.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Replace the Genesis with any other culture's story of creation and you have exactly the same answer. As you mentioned allot of stories are simply poetic. It's sad that majority do not realize that myth is nothing more than work of art, and work of art can be manipulate in any way imaginable to fit personal interpretation to deliver self satisfaction. The search for hero will never cease as long as mankind exist, there will always be an ideal hero or heroes for humans to look upon and Jesus Christ is no exception.=)

Take your pick, there are better yarns that Genesis but they are just myths.

http://www.pantheon.org/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

irregardless.

---

That word always makes me take people seriously. </sarcasm>

Ruski, the "proof" for Jesus has been and will be debated for years to come, loads of evidence on both sides and no one is ever going to agree. I could say it's sad that you can't see the value in the historic aspects of christianity and accept that there might be something beyond yourself too, that as long as mankind exists there will always be those who can't look outside themselves for something greater

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

It seems, as always, it is the extremists on either end that cause all the problems.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

WS, planning to do some more looking on the Jewish prophecy mentioned in the other thread, interesting stuff. I did miss the Genesis/disproving Christ dicussion though, can you point me towards the specific posts?

---

Well Fig, I may go dig it up - but here is the lowdown;

The Old Testament is supposed to contain God's Word, given to the Jews, right? Well, God also gives the rules by which a Messiah is to be recognized, as well. These Rules come from the same sources as the Old Testament.

So it doesn't really matter how one goes about trying to decifer or understand Genesis, or other parts of the Old Testament - if one tends to lend the Old Testament credence, then Jesus cannot be the Messiah - he just doesn't meet the necessary criteria as given by God Himself to the Jewish People - His Chosen People, I might add. This is one of the main points of Jewish religion against Jesus.

On the other hand, if one doesn't tend to take the Old Testament seriously - then there is no Original Sin, etc, and the Ten Commandmants are also null and void - and the Old Testament does not really contain God's Word in it.

That then leaves the New Testament - and without the Old Testament to back it up, pretty much stands there...naked.

I wonder why Saul, a pharisee, would believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah if the Old Testament Law that Saul revered disproves that assertation...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Oh yeah, nutshell version of Jesus and Genesis that I have heard:
Original sin entered in through Adam
Original sin exited through Jesus
That is why people need to know about Adam, because if they don't believe they are sinners, then they don't believe they need Jesus to go to Heaven.
Also why Jesus is called the "last Adam."

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Man WS, that is about the most succinct summary one could come up with.

Of course Gid finally made a point too; if we don't believe we are sinners...we aren't.

That is what po's the xian, being guilty all the while the rest of us are not. ROTFLMFAO!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Gid, according to God's Word to the Jewish people this

quote:

---

Original sin entered in through Adam
Original sin exited through Jesus

---

Is not possible. There is no solution to this quandry. Either Jesus is the Messiah, and the Old Testament is therefore suspect (that makes all of it suspect) OR the Old Testament is not suspect - and therefore, the Word of God, therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.

You can't just "pick and choose", here.

Or are you suggesting that God lied to the Jews?

God is a liar?

quote:

---

I wonder why Saul, a pharisee, would believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah if the Old Testament Law that Saul revered disproves that assertation...

---

Because he fell off his ass and hit his head - that is when he became a believer.

No Fig you didn?t get my point...I acknowledge historical existence of man who influence Christianity, the point I was making that stories upon which your faith is based are nothing more than exaggerations, legends, and part of grand Judeo-Roman literature, like any other exaggerations through history in poetries. Take a myth of Troy...we know for the fact that there was city of Troy and it most likely was involved in war conflicts...but please, immortal Achilles? Gods of Olympus? Surely no one takes them out side of concept of art.

I absolutely understand mankind?s desire to look for something more out of life, I cant blame him for that, that's his nature...but, it really doesn?t validate your religion being true as you think it is.

Once again, OT and NT are nothing more than works of art. Art is always based on reality, but it never is an objective history.

The idea of Jesus Christ is a patter repeated throughout history for mankind?s quest on finding a hero, almost all the heroes fallow the same stages to become a cultural hero.

Joseph Campbell wonderfully researched mythologies through the world and found it evident?

Example on stages of Hero?s Journey?http://www.am-psychotherapists-new-york-city.com/Joseph-Campbell.html

There are great documentaries and books with him, one of the most famous is ?the Power of Myth?

I know it?s pointless to tell you all this, not that I care you to change your mind. But exploration of reality becomes important at some point, at least to me?

*shrugs*

Well, I still stand by my argument that the OT and NT can be taken together. The "rules" of the Messiah were given to the Hebrews by God in a prophetic manner. They are subject to human interpretation. The Jewish say they interpret it right, Christians say we interpreted right. We have the NT, what do they have? Nothing. Besides the fact that they are still waiting. And claiming a Messiah every once in a while, only to have them die on them. At least we are consistant with what we believe.

I, personally, don't have a problem with reconciling the Old and New testaments, anyway.

You all are forgetting that a large amount of Jews believed that Jesus was Messiah. Many fell away when he made it obvious that he was not about an open war rebellion with Rome. Even the apostles deserted him when he died. But something happened to change their mind. Or else Jesus would have died in their minds just like every other Messiah they think they have found before and since then. Anyone who wants to believe that it was all made up a century after the fact, you've got that right. But personally, I can't believe it. Why put so much into something you don't even believe yourself? Just to start a religion? For a belief in a "hero" who was nothing like a hero, and is depicted nothing like a hero, but a passive martyr at first glance?

For any of you who may be sitting on the fence--read "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phillip Yancey. It will at least show you what a truly remarkable and understated person Jesus was, even if you still can't believe that he was the Son of God.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

You all are forgetting that a large amount of Jews believed that Jesus was Messiah.

---

Unfactual. Where is your evidence?

More telling than anything, is the total lack of information dealing with the childhood of Jesus (which one would expect to be very unusual, being that he was the "son of god").

Instead, nothing.

I think this is because he lead a relatively normal childhood - including anything else would of course have been rebuked by those who knew him as a child way back then. Of course, we all know, that Jesus couldn't of lead a normal childhood, because he is supposed to be without sin, right?

quote:

---

The Jewish say they interpret it right, Christians say we interpreted right.

---

It is not subject to interpretation - it specifically (just as the Ten Commandmants does) lays down the rules governing who is and is not a messiah. I always find this to be pretty funny, that the xians must always "bend things around to fit". The Jews don't have to.

In this, the Jews are much more consistant than the xians could ever dream of being. The Jews have also proved that they can keep information in a factual form closer to the original much better than the xians can.

quote:

---

The "rules" of the Messiah were given to the Hebrews by God in a prophetic manner. They are subject to human interpretation.

---

About as subject to human interpretation as the Ten Commandments are. They are pretty well defined rules, actually, just as the Ten Commandments are.

You know, I find it very funny, that all the other information given to the Hebrews by God in a prophetic manner is accepted by xians (the Old Testament) - just not this [ONE area - I wonder why that is? Because xians have no choice, otherwise Jesus is not the Messiah? Ok, I know there are groups that do not use the Old Testament - but mainstream xianity does.

quote:

---

We have the NT, what do they have? Nothing.

---

Uhhh...the Old Testament? And a range of other materials.

Bd, you are really going off the deep end here, with your "assertions", that are readily shown as inaccurate, in the extreme. Especially this

quote:

---

At least we are consistant with what we believe.

---

That is so unsubstantiated, it isn't even funny. If anything, the xians vary wildly in what and how they believe. From Cathloics, to Protestants, Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, and Jehovah's Witnesses (sorry about leaving out many others, these are just examples).

The Jews are consistant in what they believe, and have been for almost as long as they document their history as a People, since Moses.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-11-2005 09:09)

quote:

---

But something happened to change their mind. Or else Jesus would have died in their minds just like every other Messiah they think they have found before and since then.

---

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the "sinner". If you were a Jewish prostitute and suddenly somebody told you they had a way for you to not be constantly unclean, what would you do? Maybe if you were a leper? a tax collector? The fact is, Jesus appealed to those that weren't reaping the benefits of the current institution. Christianity feeds on the fact that there are people that are ashamed of themselves and want an easy way to get rid of the burden.

quote:

---

It will at least show you what a truly remarkable and understated person Jesus was...

---

Understated? Are we talking about the son of God or my Mexican friend? This is a man who's teachings have influenced the progression of western civilazation for hundreds of years. One benefit we have from christianity is current society. Cultures would never have evolved into feudal monarchies and capitalism, if it had not been for religions that told people it was okay to be on the bottom wrung because you have the promise of heaven. Turn the other cheek, obey the rulers put over you, do not judge. Wait, is that in the Bible or did I get side-tracked into the Patriot Act?

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

At least we are consistant with what we believe.

---

Yeah...once you guys got past the first 500 years or so, things started to get at least somewhat consistent....
Of course it can easily be argued that things are hardly consistent even today.

So, you're saying the jews are inconsistent in their beliefs? I can't make sense of this idea...

quote:

---

We have the NT, what do they have? Nothing.

---

What????
I can't really respond to this one becuase I have no idea what the hell yo are trying to say...

quote:

---

You all are forgetting that a large amount of Jews believed that Jesus was Messiah.

---

No, there was a *very* small number of jews who felt this way.
The bulk of the christian movement eventually came from pagan converts, not jews.

quote:

---

Why put so much into something you don't even believe yourself?

---

To sustain the energy of a movement. To keep something that have already devoted yourself to going.
And, as has been demonstrated over an over - belief does not need to be based on fact. Who says they didn't 'believe' it just because they knew it wasn't true?

no time to continue this morning...perhaps later...

A lot of Jews thought that Jesus at first could be the Messiah--

Very probable to be fact because of the very way they still behave when someone comes along claiming to be Messiah. I wasn't there 2000 years ago. But the Jews have followed right along by any one person who they think may finally be the one, even to this day. Why should it be different with Jesus. Jesus was talking about a Kingdom, making all these claims and promises. You don't go around in a country that is occupied by foreigners, where the oppressed are expecting a King to show up any day, and make claims about a Kingdom and NOT have people think you may be the Messiah. You either have to be a lunatic, or truly believe what you are saying. And if you believe what you are saying, then you better be ready to kick some foreign butt to keep other people believing it. Jesus claimed it, and then said "no fighting". So he either was a COMPLETE lunatic, or was really the Messiah. By all accounts, he was judged to be a complete lunatic by most in the end, when he started talking about "eating my body and drinking my blood", or at the least a fraud and/or disappointment by even his closest friends. I can imagine that if I had lived back in that time, and had seen and heard Jesus as portrayed in the Gosples--I would have thought him the craziest person on earth and forgot about him. But the very fact that he carries on, well, it says something. Crazy people start cults all the time--Charles Manson, Jim Jones, that guy from Wacco, and many others. But they never get big like Christianity has, and they end up dissintegrating. I can't look at the teachings of Jesus and see a lunatic. I see very wise words. And most of the world, even non-believers, believe that he was wise.

quote:

---

About as subject to human interpretation as the Ten Commandments are.

---

The Ten Commandments are interpreted by many people, in many ways. Even though they are cut and dried. You've got die hard Christians getting nasty to other people over abortion--I don't even need to say HOW nasty--because "thou shalt not kill" when over half of those people have probably divorced and remarried, or had extramarrital affairs even though it is clear as day "thou shalt not commit adultery".

That's a little different from the interpretation of the prophecies, but on the same line of thought none the less. But the prophecies are NOT so cut and dried like the Ten Commandments, they are more like a riddle spread out through the different books of the Old Testament. And I can't help but to think that Christians are doing the exact same thing with Revelation today--getting a preset idea of what is going to happen, only for it to turn out that it happens in a completely different way. How, I can't really say. But didn't I say in another post that the Revelation reads like a revolution, and I'd probably be quick to jump behind it? Well, Jesus was NOT about a physical revolution at all the first time, who's to say he's going to change his tactics? But it does read that way. <shrug>

Consistancy--

Yeah, there are many denominations of Christianity. But every single one still believes that Jesus was the Messiah. When Church became entertwined with State by Constantine is when the beginning of all the division started. And the Jewish have had their time of denominations. There were four different denominations of the Jews in Jesus's time. The Pharisees, the Sadducsees (sp?) the Essenese (Sp?) and the Zealots. And there are still differing "denominations" of the Jews today. And different denominations of Islam for all that matter. Core teachings have remained consistant in all the religions in all their denominations though. We just don't chase around Messiahs anymore. Not anyway near the scale that the Jews do.

quote:

---

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the "sinner"

---

If that were the case, then everybody would have followed him. Because we all do things we know are wrong. But he only appealed to those with a conscious. And of them he asked a very hard and burdensome thing--be perfect. That's not the easy way out. And more than a fair share of people have been driven insane trying to live up to it litterally. Or project their guilt onto other people because they can't live up to it literally. And he knew we could not live up to it. That is where forgiveness comes in--but it's not a free ride by any means. Anyone who thinks that missed the idea by a mile.

quote:

---

One benefit we have from christianity is current society. Cultures would never have evolved into feudal monarchies and capitalism, if it had not been for religions that told people it was okay to be on the bottom wrung because you have the promise of heaven. Turn the other cheek, obey the rulers put over you, do not judge. Wait, is that in the Bible or did I get side-tracked into the Patriot Act?

---

That's not the fault of the teachings of Jesus. Oppression was around a long time before he ever walked the face of the earth. He LIVED during a time of oppression. "Turn the other cheek"? Let's see. History shows us that it was the NON VIOLENT means of Martin Luther King Jr. that finally put the first civil rights into the law books. NOT the violent means of Malcolm X--they only serve to fuel the fire of racism and hate. Yes, the non violent demonstrators had to go through much persecution, and many, even MLK Jr. himself, died for the cause.... and that's a sad fact that grieves me to my bone, but non violence against violence is what finally got it done. Granted, there are times when you have to fight for your freedom....the trick is being able to discern when is the right time and the just reasons. You can't do that if you only hate and have no empathy or respect. You become tunnel visioned and extremist. People like that are the ones that bomb abortion clinics or burn crosses on people's lawn.

quote:

---

To sustain the energy of a movement. To keep something that have already devoted yourself to going.
And, as has been demonstrated over an over - belief does not need to be based on fact. Who says they didn't 'believe' it just because they knew it wasn't true?

---

Sorry, you may see how that could be. But it doesn't wash with me. I know I wouldn't carry on with something to the death if I didn't believe in it. I would wash my hands of it and move on. People who try to carry on with something they don't really believe don't get very far in their endeavor, because they don't put the passion behind it that it takes to carry it forward past their death. If I had been one of the original apostles, and I didn't believe after Jesus died, I would have just went back to my previous beliefs, still looking for the Messiah. So I have to ask myself why they didn't just do that. It's not like choosing between pro-life and legal abortion. There was no Christianity to "choose" back then. They made a radical decision to start a completely new and off the wall route to take. You don't do that without 100% belief.

And the belief that somebody rose from the dead?? There had to be either mass hysteria to get as big a following, with each having a die hard passion, to where it is still growing 1900 years later, or it really happened. So take your pick. As hard as it is to wrap my mind around it, I personally believe it happened. And yeah, part of it comes from the fact that I WANT to believe. Exactly WHY I want to believe it, I can't tell you. I don't have a real reason to WANT to believe it. I just do. But I can tell you this....If my daughter died tomorrow, I would WANT to believe she will come back to me in three days time with all my heart. But I would still never believe it unless I actually saw her. (And I wouldn't try to make up a story 70 years later or whatever to try and convince myself and others that she did. I certainly wouldn't make up a story that I heard from somebody else that someone died and came back to life who I never even knew in person myself. Why would I care?) And if I said I actually saw her, just me by myself, I would be stuck in the mental hospital so fast by my family it would make my head spin. If not, noone would listen to me anyway. So that's why I believe it happened and it works for me. Again, I realize not all feel that way, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just telling you why I believe it to be real. I can't see any reason why Christianity would've came about unless something extraordinary really and truly happened.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Why should it be different with Jesus. Jesus was talking about a Kingdom, making all these claims and promises. You don't go around in a country that is occupied by foreigners, where the oppressed are expecting a King to show up any day, and make claims about a Kingdom and NOT have people think you may be the Messiah.

---

This is very skewed.

For starters, there were people all over the place claiming to be prophets and/or the messiah.

Just because Jesus made hese claims does not in any way mean the jews thought he was the messiah.

And do you have some examples of how the jewish community as a whole follows along with someone claiming to be the messiah? I have never seen/heard/read anything of the sort....

quote:

---

When Church became entertwined with State by Constantine is when the beginning of all the division started

---

This is as wrong as any statement has ever been!
I am rather shocked to even read it, frankly.

Constantine did a tremendous amount of work to solidify and conslidate the christian view.
The time of the most variation, disagreement and dissent was *before* the time of constantine. There has never been, since that time, the wide scope of variation of christian view, not even *close*.

It wasn't until the 4th century that there emerged any sort of agreement on christian views - including whether or not jesus was actually divine at all, and especially as to the actual nature of such a divinity among those who beleived he was divine.
What we see today as christianity did not emerge with any clarity until at least the late 2nd century, and even then was still only one of many *very* diverse views of jesus - what he was, how to live by his word, what his words actually were, and so on.


Again, short on time...will try to get more in later.

I also want to say this. As far as myth goes...stories like Orsiris and Isis, and all the Greek and Roman myths of Zeus sleeping with mortals and creating demi-gods....all these things were floating around before written history began. And all the panthons, from the Greek and Roman, to the Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian pantheons, can be said to have orally transferred from one basic story somewhere lost in pre-history as man spread out through the world. They are all very similar, and with study, can be said to be traced back in such a mannor as I am saying. I have read it myself. Even Christianity and Judaism has these aspects of angels coming down and breeding with humans. Much of this has been removed from the religion over time though, although you can see traces of it in the bible.....just enough to say it can mean one thing or another.

And like Jesus, many of those old religions have stories of someone coming back to life. But Jesus is the only one who emerged after written history began. He was not an oral "legend" that finally got written down. We know this as fact becasue there is thousands of years of history written down in the old testament of the same culture and same religion before he ever appears. And Jesus caused the split of Christians from Judaism at a marked time in history. So, even though the story of Jesus is similar to other myth, it is entirely unique in that aspect. The Jewish people did not conceive of a Messiah that dies. Period. They would not just "make it up after the fact" for no reason...I can't see it happening that way anyway.

Just my observation of things.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Sorry for the double post, but evidently DL and I were typing at the same time....

quote:

---

And do you have some examples of how the jewish community as a whole follows along with someone claiming to be the messiah? I have never seen/heard/read anything of the sort....

---

Well, WS gave two examples of it in the other thread. I can't remember their names now, and don't feel like looking back through the posts. John the Baptist can be said to have thought for a time to be the Messiah....but he denied it himself from the start. Phillip Yancey in that book I mentioned tells of a more recent Jewish Rabbi that made headlines of sorts as being the Messiah. He was a 91 year old man.

But here. Go here and scroll down to the section marked "Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants" It can tell you much better than I of the many messiah claimants and the Jewish reactions to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

As for Constantine--what he did was legalize Christianity. And at the time, it seemed like the best thing to happen. The state started funding what the people had previously had to do out of their own pockets and under persecution. I have no doubt that his intentions were nothing but good. But isn't that what led to why we had the Revolutionary war--to escape and have religious freedom (as well as freedom period) from England? Because the persecuted had now become the persecuters as well as the persecuted? Isn't that what a lot of christians are trying to do today? To "legalize" our views?? And are making a giant mess of it? Causing all these problems and craziness?

A belief and way of life, no matter how much one may believe it to be fact, CANNOT and must not be legalized to force that view on others. It only leads to trouble.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-11-2005 21:26)

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-11-2005 21:32)

quote:

---

"Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants" It can tell you much better than I of the many messiah claimants and the Jewish reactions to them

---

I am well aware of many other 'claimants' to the title of messiah.
Unless I've missed, I still don't see anything there that gives any indication of the jewish community running off to accept them as messiah....

And from what we know of history, this is not what happened with Jesus either.

quote:

---

As for Constantine--what he did was legalize Christianity.

---

This is incorrect. What Constantine did was to make the persecution of christians illegal.

The rest of that paragraph I can't understand, so I can't respond to it.

The fact remains that there were at least dozens, if not hundreds of variations of view that were all claming to be the true christianity. That all claimed to have the 'real' jesus, the 'real' story.

These views range from some minor differences, to some differences that were so bizarre that we would simply shake our heads in wonder at them today.
It was widely held by many groups that Jesus and God were *not* one being, that Jesus was a kind of 'demigod' - which is the way he is protrayed at many points in the NT (and we don't see the idea of the trinity laid out unitl a couple centuries later, either). It was also widely held by other groups that Jesus was not divine at all - that he was simply a prophet.
It was held by many that the way into heaven was to understand the secret messages in Jesus' words, and that only those with this special knowledge would make it beyond this mortal life.
In what we often refer to as the 'proto-orthodox' group, we still don't see the idea of Jesus actually being a divine being emerge until the very end of the first century, beginning of the second, when the gospel of John was written.

We see a lot of important figures in the proto-orthodox group who, in the process of shaping the orthodox view, developed dogma that was later deemed heretical by the same exact group of people. Why? Beacause over the course of 300 years, they shaped and developed what their view actually was, and as things progressed, earlier versions that disagreed must obviously be wrong, and therefore heretical.

The proto-orthodox being the group that Constantine fell in with, also became the dominant group. Christians essentially owe their faith to the emperor who lead the way in singling out and clarifying a single view out of many. And it, of course, was the view that was the most pallatable, the most accessible, the easiest to get people to go along with, the most attractive. Nowhere in this list of adjectives is 'the most accurate' or 'the most truthful' of course. Truth has nothing to do with it...

.

As for your comments on myth - these also seem very well off the mark, and I would be very curious as to where you get this idea that all mythological figures other than jesus were conceived before written history?
This is simply not true. There are many important figures that very obviously emrerged after the dawn of written history, from the greeks, the persians, the assyrians, and many many many more.

Obviously, some, like those of the judeao-christian myths, were oral traditions first. But clearly nowhere near all...

Not going to get into the theological side of this debate, but I just wanted to quickly address this:

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

And all the panthons, from the Greek and Roman, to the Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian pantheons, can be said to have orally transferred from one basic story somewhere lost in pre-history as man spread out through the world. They are all very similar, and with study, can be said to be traced back in such a mannor as I am saying. I have read it myself.

---

As a student of oral literature (currently studying for my Ph.D.), I have to agree with DL that our remarks are are off the mark. I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree, and I'm not sure you have a sufficient understanding of mythology. There are indeed archetypes in mythology, like the hero archetype, for example. But the idea that these all stem from one protomyth that is now lost to us has been discredited for decades. I believe a more plausible explanation is that these myths express themes that are common to humanity. Take certain inventions, for example. Gutenberg was said to have invented the printing press, but movable type had been used in Korea long before he printed his Bible (the environment in Korea at the time, however, was not as conducive to the spread of printing as the European environment, making Gutenberg's invention ultimately far more significant in terms of world history--but this is beside the point). Does this mean that Gutenberg stole the idea from Korea? Most people would find this claim absurd, as indeed it is. Instead, it is more likely that two cultures stumbled upon the same idea independently. Insisting that inventions such as this had to have come from a single source is just as silly as insisting on protomyths. I'm not sure where you read this yourself, but you might want to update your reading material (Oh, and if your source is Joseph Campbell, be careful of quoting or relying on him around academics, as this will generally get you torn apart).

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

And like Jesus, many of those old religions have stories of someone coming back to life. But Jesus is the only one who emerged after written history began. He was not an oral "legend" that finally got written down. We know this as fact becasue there is thousands of years of history written down in the old testament of the same culture and same religion before he ever appears. And Jesus caused the split of Christians from Judaism at a marked time in history. So, even though the story of Jesus is similar to other myth, it is entirely unique in that aspect. The Jewish people did not conceive of a Messiah that dies. Period. They would not just "make it up after the fact" for no reason...I can't see it happening that way anyway.

---

I don't mean to be insulting here, but this statement shows the limits of your knowledge of mythology. How can you claim that the Jesus story is the only one that has been written down and not derived from an oral legend? Even if this were the case, how can you say that a story that was written down decades after it happened remained completely free of the influence of mythic archetypes? You are also ignoring the fact that the advent of written literature did not mean the sudden end of oral literature. Just because a story happened after the advent of written literature doesn't mean that it didn't start out as oral literature. Do you think that no one spoke of Jesus or told stories of his life from the time of his death until the time the gospels were written? It is a very common phenomenon for stories of a real person to be continuously elaborated on after said person's death, to the point that the figure becomes legendary.

Case in point: Beomil, the tutelary (guardian) deity of Daegwallyeong Ridge in eastern Korea. Beomil was an actual historical figure who lived during the Unified Silla period--he was born in 810 and died in 889. He was a Buddhist monk who was given the title of Royal Preceptor (the highest title awarded to a monk, which basically involved him tutoring the king) and founded several temples. Many years after his death, though, legends began circulating that the woman who would become his mother had gone to the well one day and discovered the sun in her dipper gourd. She poured the water out and dipped again, only to find the sun still there. She drank the water anyway and became pregnant. Since she was not married, when the child was born her family forced her to abandon it beneath a rock on the hill behind their village (I have been to this very hill and seen this very rock, by the way, so it must be true!). The child, however, did not die, but was protected and fed by cranes who came down from the heavens. When the mother went back to the rock later, she saw the cranes protecting the child and realized that he was no ordinary being. So she took him home and sent him to the capital to study, and the rest, as they say, is history. After his death it was believed that his spirit became the guardian deity of the region.

This is just one of countless examples. I could go on, of course, but I think I've proven my point.

Mind you, I am not making a judgment on your beliefs. I just think that making unfounded statements like this undermines your argument. You are trying to argue on secular grounds that the story of Jesus is somehow different from other hero myths. It's not at all--you just can't win that argument. It's hard for people with any knowledge of this field (that is, mythology and oral literature in general) to take you seriously. I don't mean this as an insult, I'm just not sure you are aware of how damaging your statements are to your overall argument.

[Edit: Oh, and this is totally unrelated, but I can't resist. Ever since I first read the thread title I've been imagining a program called Jesus that requires a plugin named Genesis. I'm a hopeless geek, aren't I.]

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

(Edited by Suho1004 on 08-12-2005 08:20)

Sorry, Double tap
_______________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-12-2005 13:25)

In a previous post I said,

quote:

---

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the "sinner"

---

Belladonna's response was,

quote:

---

If that were the case, then everybody would have followed him. Because we all do things we know are wrong. But he only appealed to those with a conscious. And of them he asked a very hard and burdensome thing--be perfect. That's not the easy way out. And more than a fair share of people have been driven insane trying to live up to it litterally...

---

You can have a conscious and know when you do wrong without feeling like you are a sinner. When I said sinner, I was refering to what was considered sin based on the religion. If two single, consenting adults decide to sleep together, why is it a sin? By saying that it says so in the Bible, means a person will comply with this as long as they believe the Bible. The individuals I was talking about were surrounded by a culture that labeled them as sinners and unclean. The only way to overcome this was to follow certain rituals, and to cease commiting the sin. However, any individual can believe the teachings of Jesus, and whether they decide to stop sinning or not, they still get the solace that no matter how "perfect" someone else practices the religion, both individuals are the same amount of unclean. Once the mindset is in place that you are a sinner, you have abandoned yourself to a mindset that you are in a debt that can't be paid back, because it is just who you are.

This explains why, in America, so many individuals of African descent convert to islam as opposed to christianity. I understend that it was abused by those in power, but it doesn't justify the fact that christianity was being used to convince black people that it was just their lot in life to be viewed as subordinate to white people. The Bible was also used to say that black people were the descendents of Ham who were cursed to be slaves in Genesis 9:18-29.

Which kind of leads me to my next topic:

quote:

---

NOT the violent means of Malcolm X--they only serve to fuel the fire of racism and hate...

---

I myself was raised in a white, christian household, and I know that I was raised to think that Malcolm X was a racist, Islamic extremist. Based off of your comment, I'm betting you have not read the book. If you had, you would know that Malcolm X never commited any violent hate crime nor instigated it. He simply said a black person has the right to carry a weapon in order to defend themselves if the attacked is based on their race. I guess an out-spoken individual with differing views isn't allowed to use the second ammendment. After traveling to Mecca, he even began to say that all people are equal and that it is the (white) american society that causes the persecution, not an automatic product of skin color, which I am in total agreement with. He is a great example of somebody who allowed himself to listen and change and forgive. By the way, he was assassinated for his cause too...by real racist muslim extremists.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

First of all, I'm still waiting for factual proof that "lots of Jews" followed and believed that Jesus was the Messiah (especially considering that there is no factual evidence that Jesus really existed!)

Second, I'm still waiting for a conclusive proof, of any kind (based on logic and reason, instead of "because I think so") that xians are more consistent in their beliefs than the Jews.

I can, of course, prove my point that it is the opposite, by using an argument based on logic and reason.

All I have heard to this point, is that all xians believe in Jesus (duh, or they wouldn't be called xians) - well, all those that follow the Jewish religion, believe in the same God, and all the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

And that a hell of a lot longer, and under more extreme circumstances, than the xians can even begin to imagine. Those of Jewish faith stick to that which was given them by God - irregardless of what some sect might think to the contrary, and has managed to not only exist alongside it, but has managed to thrive alongside it.

I don't see Jews springing from their faith in Masses over to xianity.



I also want to commend Master Suho for a well-written, and well-thought out post.

You really should drop into this part of the Asylum more often - your talent with words is refreshing.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-12-2005 11:46)

While I appreciate the thought, WS, you know me: just flitting in and out and leaving behind the odd pile of droppings every now and then.

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

It took me some searching but I found this in reference to the Jewish in Roman Palestine:http://www.orthohelp.com/geneal/popul.HTM

quote:

---

Jews in Roman Empire:
25% of Roman population in Eastern Mediterranean
10% of entire Roman Empire
48 C.E. Roman census: 7 million Jews (mostly in Judea, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Babylon, Iran, Yemen and Ethiopia) for an estimated total of 8 million world wide.

---

As far as the many jewish converts, the beginning of Acts has the total of followers at about 120. Acts 1:15Let's say that the jewish population was 7 million. If those 120 grew to 7000 jewish converts, that would be about .1% of the total population, you can judge the size of the number as large or small however you want to spin it. I myself doubt the number got that high, as the missionaries quickly started accepting gentiles and traveling to other lands. Of course, we know that there were many converts to christianity, but I don't think a large amount were jewish.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Allow me to echo the kudo's to Suho for an excellent, reasoned and rational post.

Sadly, reason and rationality fly out the window or perhaps more fittingly, are not allowed in the window, by those blinkered by their "faith".

Thus is anticipate, with no enthusiasm whatsoever, a suitably spun response by BD.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

[Double post edited - WebShaman]

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-12-2005 16:39)

As for Constantine, i actually do question his motives unfortunately. His sudden conversion seems ideally politically timed, he did however do quite a bit to unify Christianity in the roman world. Anyone interested in a great quick review on the history of this time should check out 'Christianity: The First Thousand Years' on A&E (or you can order the DVD from them), really well-done historical look at Christianity and the factors influencing it.

WS, interesting stuff on the Jewish/Xian views on the messiah. I want to do some more reading on the Jewish interpretations as I'm not all that familiar with them. If I get a better grasp on it i'll post some thoughts at that point.

Ruski, I do follow you, I just don't necessarily agree with you. I rarely attempt to really engage you in these discussions because of your constant condescending attitude towards me or anyone else who is Xian and our "grasp of reality". I don't necessarily agree with WS, DL, or others, but I'm more than happy to engage in discussions with them to learn more about what they believe and their thoughts on my beliefs. Contrary to your perception I am quite a rational, analytical person and not the mindless sheep that you allude to.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig, I would like to apologize if I seem to be rather offensive. I am sorry but I am not yet good enough with writing down clearly how I want to sound.

I do not wish to attack your beliefs in anyway, simply because no where you have demonstrated any sort of obsessive fanaticism like majority had on this boards, sorry. Please take your time, I am still getting used to it. I just don?t like when subjective religious interpretations get in a way of historical discussion, because it blurs the line between the two and creates uncomfortable feelings.

I have seen Christianity: The First Thousand Years' and Second Thousands Years as well, very informative.

As for Constantine, there was some stuff on History channel where they said that he was still a pagan for most of the life and he though it was Apollo and not Judeo-Christian deity that convinced him in whatever "miraculous" vision he had, the evidence was provided that a coin with Apollo's image was released after his conquest or something along those lines. He only converted to Christianity at his deathbed, so it is fair to assume he led most of his life as a pagan. DL pointed out that he simply made chrsitians to be free of persecution, I guess his favor for christianity was that Greco-Roman religion and deities were poor in value compared with Judeo-Christianity, times were changing, Empire was collapsing, strong unification of the Roman Empire was required.

The fact that his mother was a christian played a rather significant part in his conversion, I am sure

Keep in mind though, that he did not merely end the persecution, he was responsible for convening the first council of Nicea, and played a big role in getting the bishops to iron out the details.

DL--I see your point. And I actually agree with a lot of what you said about even the differing views of Jesus early on. I am going to risk being "stoned" and say that I do not claim to fully understand the idea of a "trinity" myself. To me it's just a word to try and express an idea that can't really be fully expressed. I myself like the idea of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" all wrapped up as one--but I can't say I comprehend what that could mean or how it could be. But, I have no problem believing there are things in this world that nobody will ever be able to truly understand....so the jump is not hard for me.

Getting back to the differing beliefs in eary Christiandom....I can see how these would come about. Especially the demi-god one...the idea of demi-gods have come down from prehistory. You can go back to the first written records in history and there are always half human/half god beings. The only thing I can do for MYSELF and MY personal belief, is to try and strip away all the things that other people and the Church have placed on top of the gosples. All the rules and regulations make it very hard to be a Christian. My mother in law, for example, shuns me because I refuse to give up Metallica, Led Zepplin, and AC/DC, refuse to give up Stephen King and my preferrence for reading about occultish things, and because I prefer comfortable jeans and tee-shirts instead of preppy clothes, and prefer to have a beer with my pizza rather than iced tea. She says I haven't really "accepted Jesus", I'm a fraud. Never mind anything else in my life. Never mind that I treat all people I meet with respect and kindness, no matter if they are sitting on a harley, sitting in the gutter, or sitting in a church pew. Never mind that I always have a smile on my face and don't talk about people behind their backs anything that I wouldn't dare say to their face. Never mind the relationship I have with my daughter. Never mind that I genuinely try to understand people instead of judging them. She can't understand all that. She can't understand why I have friends from "other" walks of life. But that's her and HER beliefs. I accept her and love her just the way she is.

I am not perfect by any means--I can be hateful and spiteful, saying some of the cruelest, most selfish things when my anger is aroused. This is one of the things I am now working on improving. Only one of the many, mind you LOL.

Anyway, all that is just small scale example of the bigger things that have been interpreted and placed on Jesus and/or the Bible by organized religion. I'm just trying to strip it all away and get back to the principles. I am not trying to convince anybody that Jesus was the Son of God....I believe he was, but I came to that conclusion on my own by what I have searched into. Not just because someone said it or wrote it. And not because it has been "ingrained" into me. It most assuredly was not.

As far as certain aspects of religion being passed down one from another....take the Greek Zeus for example. "Zeus" did not become a word until the "Greeks" came up with him. But the very first people who settled in Greece, were not "Greeks". They came from somewhere else, and brought whoever their god was with them--who became "Zeus" over time. And that happened before written history started. Or, at least the whole process started before written history. I've read all of Zecharia Sitchins books--and I can't agree with his whole "alien theory", but the man did trace the history of religions very well, and how they could have all been passed down (even judaism)--getting changed here and there and bit by bit on the way. He points out the very similarites of the different dieties of different cultures by names that I can't even remember now and shows how they can all be traced down from prehistory by the patterns of prehistoric immigrations of people. That's the only thing of importance that I took away from reading all his books. You can't get back all the way to the "original" belief, because it is lost in prehistory. But....it is MY belief that the God of the bible is the closest one for reasons I have stated on another thread. The Jews had already written down all there beliefs that had been passed down through pre-history and written history in the Tanakh. All of it. And there are hints of hybrid half-angelic half-human beings from Genesis. But these were not seen in the same light as the demi-gods of Greek and Roman mythologies, or even the more ancient demi-gods. If you go back to the oldest written Greed records, or even further back to the oldest Sumerian written records....their demi gods are already written about.

Suho--I have never heard of Beomil before. Very interesting, and I'll have to look him up. But from what you said, I still see vast differences in his story and Jesus' story. For one, he was a born a Buddhist and died a Buddhist. And it doesn't seem from what you said that he really during his life had a radically different teaching from what Buddhism was in his day that founded a whole new belief system out of another, so radical that it caused a major split that still exists today between the groups. I'll have to research more to be sure about that, just going by what you did post. As far as mythology--I have an interest in it, but only as a hobby. I never have "studied" it formally. But patterns in history and things and people come very natural to me, and anyone who knows me personally can tell you that I have an uncanny knack for seeing how something now will affect things way later down the road. Nobody ever believes me til it happens though. LOL. (Not that I can "fortune tell" by any means--I just have this ability to see farther then present circumstances, and do it well by factoring in human nature. I don't miss the forest for the trees.) And this applies to why things are the way they are now--because something in the past grew to it. So for all your (and any body else's) experties, I have to disagree with you. Man's prehistory is much longer than his written history. And I cannot look at the all the Gods and demi-gods of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Akkadians, the Sumerians, and on down the line, without seeing very distinct, and at times uncanny, similarities to each other. Especially when laid side-by-side with the immigrations patterns believed to have happened in pre-history, and knowing that human nature causes those with different beliefs to be one of the main reasons people group together and move to a different territory. Not the only reason, but a large reason.

It is like dragons. Every culture in the world has dragons way back to their known beginnings. And they all have differences, but they all have very certain and distinct similarities too. I can understand two separate cultures coming up with the idea of printing near about the same time, totally independant of one another. It is an obvious "next step" to spoken language. To write them down. It is also another obvious "next step" to print them and speed up the writing process. But when it comes to a whole pantheon of Gods and demi-gods, or something as distinct as a dragon and all the trappings of a dragon--I find it hard to believe that these ideas came up independantly and totally separate from each other when there are so many similarities. And I'm not talking about "archtype" hero stories. I'm talking about personal attributes of each God or Godess, what aspect of human nature and physical nature they represented. How they behaved individually. That kind of thing. "Some" independantly, I could see. "one" independantly, I could see. And that is where the differences that do exist come in. But not as many similarities as there were. That would be like me and you sitting down independantly and writting the same novel about the same characters with the same outcome and story line and only minor differences in details. More than a novel--a whole soap opera.

History and science (and even religion to a point) both agree that there is a certain area of the world where man as we know it first began and spread out from, overtaking any other being that may have looked like him (such as neanderthals) that stood in his path, or assimilated them in one way or another. Our patterns today are still the same in a lot of ways. If one is like me, and believes there is a God, and other heavenly beings, it is not impossible to believe that in the beginning this God and other heavenly beings may have had a direct connection and accessibilty to this world. And that the happenings of these interactions so affected that first group of man as we know it, that it left an impression that spread. Changing as it went because God had since removed his physical presence from the world and soon became only known by oral histories. Which much much later got written down. And even later still got chopped up and pieces that seem to not fit a certain mold removed. It makes logical since to me, because I believe in God. Any who doesn't believe in God will find that idea difficult to believe or just hogwash and backward reasoning, trying to make my beliefs fit into reality.

Jesus is the exception in my eyes. He is nowhere in the tanakh, which record Jewish belief from the beginning of man as they know it. Promises of a Messiah are, but he is not there himself as a man. He popped up at a dated time in history, and died at a dated time in history. He is nothing like any of the "archtype" stories of heros. His views were radical for the time he lived in. He was nothing like what the Jews thought a Messiah should be by their own prophecy. He was rejected and crucified, thought to be crazy by a lot of people. Even his own apostles, his closest friends, did not understand him or agree with him. By all accounts--he should have been forgotten after he died. But instead, he inspired a whole new idea of the long established, ancient Jewish belief system that is recorded in its entirety in the Tanakh. It is totally ILLOGICAL to me that his memory should have lived on past his death. It defies everything I understand and know about human nature. If I wanted to create a legend and hero to found a religion, Jesus as he was in the Gosples is NOT what I or anybody else would write him to portray. He would have been a lot more aggressive, a lot more in tune with the teachings of the day, a lot more loved by the people, and died a martyr by hate by a small group, rather than fear of a two distinct large groups, to portray triumph, not defeat. He would have had specific, outlined teachings and rules--not the seemingly backward, hard to live up to, ideals that are written in the Gosples. But that is if I were "making it up". If I were writing the Gosples as they were written to portray Jesus, I wouldn't have written them at all. If I were Peter, and lived with the Jesus of the Gosples and something miraculous didn't happen to change my mind, I would have went back to fishing and the whole thing would have died right there. I guess maybe Muhammad is the closest thing to Jesus I can come up with, and I'm not even sure about that because I really haven't looked too much into Islam. But as far as I know, I don't even think he was portrayed as radically different and hated as Jesus was.

That's just my take on it. I don't see, looking at all the other "heros" in mythology, how any of them are quite like Jesus. I do, however, appreciate you not trodding on my beliefs and discussing this with me. That means a lot.

Reaubu--First, where does it say in the bible that two single consenting adults cannot have sex or it is a sin? Anybody....please point that out to me. I see lots of things said about adulterous relationships, but I don't see anything that points to any other sex up to the point where Jesus dies on the cross. Point it out to me and I will tear it down. Sex is not a sin. It can be overindulged, and over used by people who don't LOVE or TRULY CARE about the other person involved, causing emotional pain and all sorts of other nasty consequences, but sex is NOT the sin. The sin is in the heart of the offender who is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. As far as teenagers, it is up to the parent to ensure they start instilling values in them so they don't hurt other people and become over indulgent. This begins in childhood with other things that have nothing to do with sex, and later include teaching about sex itself and its repercussions.

My point being, that people see what they want to see and don't really THINK about what they think. Not you Reaubu, I know you used that as an example, but just RELIGIOUS people in general.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying. If you read what Jesus taught though, and really understand it, it strips away all the ritual and harsh, confounded rules and brings it back to basics. He doesn't really change anything of importance from the old testament. Most of his teachings can be found spread out in the Old Testament somewhere, between all the rules and regulations, rituals, and thundering punishments of God, and the prophecies.

ONE of the most profound statements he made, that people overlook, is the statement that the "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". I have NEVER heard a preacher preach on this statement and it's implications. People don't want to hear it because it tears down their safety net of rules and regulations. The original Commandment, heard by all of Isreal standing by the mountain, was simply "remember the sabbath to keep it holy". Keeping it holy can mean different things to different people. And under the extreme conditions they were in under the time of exodus, small arguments could lead to bigger finger pointing on bigger issues, and become deadly. So you end up with all these rules to define for everybody exactly what the Ten Commandments meant to say, and rules that should make it easier to follow them. "What God MEANT to say was"....Insert your idea. God said what he meant the first time. Keep it holy. Whatever keeping it holy means to you, just remember on that day all the things I have done for you. Praise me. Because I know you get real busy with life and trying to survive. Set some time aside for Me on the Sabbath. That's what I get out of it anyway. Nothing about work, nothing about healing or picking a piece of corn off the stalk. Nothing that says I can't cook if I don't have leftovers to eat. But people made rules for it anyway. So Jesus took it back to the original. And we STILL put rules on it. The laws against opening your business on Sunday in my hometown have only been lifted not too long ago. It's human nature not to let other people just be on issues like this.

As far as consistancy, I see your point WebShaman, and have to concede. I shouldn't have used the word "consitancy" to say what I was trying to say in the first place.

As far as the Jews converting today and the number of Jews that believed in Jesus as the Messiah in Acts-- of course. Because they had already decided He was not the Messiah--just like they always conclude someone isn't the Messiah after they die and didn't fulfill what they think of as the mold for the Messiah. It was the belief of the few Jews after His death that spurred it on. And, by all accounts, I cannot see that happening unless something happened after the death of Jesus to make those few change their mind. Simply because of the very same attitude they have of other "Messiahs". No other potential "Messiah" has sprung up a religion--through the Jews OR the Gentiles. WebShaman, your very own arguments show how staunch the Jewish are about the whole Messiah thing. By all accounts, Peter and Saul and the rest of the few Jews who preached so passionately to the Gentiles about Jesus should not have done so. Especially Saul. The idea should have died on the cross with Jesus. Or at least not long after. The fact that those few Jewish apostles even reached out to the Gentiles so passionately helps show how much credence they put into Jesus. By everything that I can gather, Jews of that day considered it sacrilidge to bring a gentile into the religion. Or preach to the Gentiles. Even the apostles were insulted when Jesus mentioned the Gentiles. They still to this day, many of them, will disown a son or daughter for not marrying a Jew. Some of them seem to be lightening their attitudes though in a lot of ways.

So anyway. See it how you want. I'll still see it my way. And that is that Jesus Christ should not have made it any where near this far unless he was really who he said he was. Especially when you add in human nature and the flavor of times they lived in back then. His memory should have died after everybody who knew him personally died.

Anyway, I have to go for now

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

DB Your comments comparing Greeks and Jews is plain wrong.

Greeks are originally Aegean and they it is widely accepted that they had little to no religions in the Mediterranean islands, simply because there is very little evidence of any sort of worship involved in their cultures, one of the evidence is a miniature sculpture of snake goddess, pretty much a fertility deity, but that is in no similarity to Zeus of whatever. Greeks developed their beliefs purely as they developed their civilization as Greece. It all came together in their obsession with the mankind being center of everything, the birth of democracy the focus on architectural out-terior perfection, and expression through sculptures to mankind?s perfect bodily image.

Now Jews themselves were very much scattered on Canaanite beliefs which they barrowed from, there were wars between tribes and their deities which include Baal-zebub or just Baal, a bull like deity where there are still traces in Genesis as a biased point of views how the Yawish cult conquered and destroyed those beliefs (and who later is referred to devil, hence many xians use term beelzebub to name opponednt of Yaweh). The idea on Yawish cult developed from and among other competing cults all being related to the Higher God by the name of El who dwelt on Mount Saphon and it was under his aegis that Baal married Anat, defeated the sea god Yam and the death lord Mot, and was installed as the divine bestower of life-giving rain. Represented as an aged man, El wore bull's horns, the symbol of strength, and was usually depicted as seated. It is thought that he corresponded to the Hebrew god, Yahweh. He is also known as El 'Elyon, "God Most High."

reference www.pantheon.org


Beside DB, the reason why the idea of Christianity didn?t die out is simply because it attracted large amount of Pagans. If Christianity stayed within the Jewish circle it would have defiantly died out Long time ago.
There was a turmoil and big mess with religions in Greco-Roman world and their deities didn?t have the same values as Jewish deities had, allot of pagans tried to convert to Judaism but it was just hard, it needed allot of requirements, which includes circumcision kosher etc and Christianity was an easy way out, as Paul absolutely ignored most of the Jewish requirements and said they were unnecessary to be Christian this simple and radical message attracted allot of followers.



(Edited by Ruski on 08-13-2005 01:19)

My Dad's name was El, guess that makes me the son of El.

What I still have difficulty understanding is why anybody with functioning synapses needs a god of any description.

People of lesser intelligence I can understand being snowed by self-aggrandizing propagandists calling themselves prists.

But how anyone with an IQ greater than a walnut or Dumbya can fall for that hooey, then or now, just simply escapes me.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Belladonna: I'll try to address some of the points you made.

Firstly, it is no surprise that you haven't heard of Beomil, as he is virtually unknown outside of Korea. I just picked him as an example because I've been studying those myths recently.

quote:

---

But from what you said, I still see vast differences in his story and Jesus' story. For one, he was a born a Buddhist and died a Buddhist. And it doesn't seem from what you said that he really during his life had a radically different teaching from what Buddhism was in his day that founded a whole new belief system out of another, so radical that it caused a major split that still exists today between the groups.

---

All true. But that's not what you said at first, and that's not why I gave the example. You said:

quote:

---

But Jesus is the only one who emerged after written history began. He was not an oral "legend" that finally got written down.

---

That, of course, is patently false, and that was the point I was trying to make. By making obviously false statements like that, you undermine the rest of your argument.

Now for this:

quote:

---

And this applies to why things are the way they are now--because something in the past grew to it. So for all your (and any body else's) experties, I have to disagree with you. Man's prehistory is much longer than his written history. And I cannot look at the all the Gods and demi-gods of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Akkadians, the Sumerians, and on down the line, without seeing very distinct, and at times uncanny, similarities to each other. Especially when laid side-by-side with the immigrations patterns believed to have happened in pre-history, and knowing that human nature causes those with different beliefs to be one of the main reasons people group together and move to a different territory. Not the only reason, but a large reason.

---

I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Are you still arguing for protomyths? Why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility that different cultures may have come up with the same idea independently? Isn't equally as possible that the common elements of humanity gave rise to these independent myths?

And as for "Man's prehistory is much longer than his written history"--when did I say it wasn't? All I said was that oral history did not end when written history began, as you seemed to ignore the fact that oral legends can still form in a society with a written history.

quote:

---

It is like dragons. Every culture in the world has dragons way back to their known beginnings. And they all have differences, but they all have very certain and distinct similarities too. I can understand two separate cultures coming up with the idea of printing near about the same time, totally independant of one another. It is an obvious "next step" to spoken language. To write them down. It is also another obvious "next step" to print them and speed up the writing process. But when it comes to a whole pantheon of Gods and demi-gods, or something as distinct as a dragon and all the trappings of a dragon--I find it hard to believe that these ideas came up independantly and totally separate from each other when there are so many similarities. And I'm not talking about "archtype" hero stories. I'm talking about personal attributes of each God or Godess, what aspect of human nature and physical nature they represented. How they behaved individually. That kind of thing. "Some" independantly, I could see. "one" independantly, I could see. And that is where the differences that do exist come in. But not as many similarities as there were. That would be like me and you sitting down independantly and writting the same novel about the same characters with the same outcome and story line and only minor differences in details. More than a novel--a whole soap opera.

---

I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to accept. The ancient deities were given those attributes and characteristics because they expressed common human desires and hopes. Your example of two different people independantly writing the same soap opera is unreasonable. Let us say, instead, that you were to tell two people to write a story of love and betrayal. No doubt you would find many striking similarities in their stories, especially if the writers were of the same basic culture. Does this mean that they drew on a proto-soap opera? No, it means they drew on common human hopes and fears. But they were still developed independently.

The idea that similarity between two (or many) things necessarily means that they are drawn from a common source came about precisely because people could not see the whole picture. Humans have a tendency to see patterns and connections, and when so many similarities were discovered early anthropologists figured that there must be a connection. That idea is no longer tenable, as we realize that similarity does not necessarily point to a relationship with a single source. If you want, you could say that it points to the relationship that all human beings are involved in as members of the human race. In that way, the single source would be human nature. But this is different from the idea of a protomyth.

quote:

---

History and science (and even religion to a point) both agree that there is a certain area of the world where man as we know it first began and spread out from, overtaking any other being that may have looked like him (such as neanderthals) that stood in his path, or assimilated them in one way or another. Our patterns today are still the same in a lot of ways. If one is like me, and believes there is a God, and other heavenly beings, it is not impossible to believe that in the beginning this God and other heavenly beings may have had a direct connection and accessibilty to this world. And that the happenings of these interactions so affected that first group of man as we know it, that it left an impression that spread. Changing as it went because God had since removed his physical presence from the world and soon became only known by oral histories. Which much much later got written down. And even later still got chopped up and pieces that seem to not fit a certain mold removed. It makes logical since to me, because I believe in God. Any who doesn't believe in God will find that idea difficult to believe or just hogwash and backward reasoning, trying to make my beliefs fit into reality.

---

I've got a shocker for you, Belladonna: I do believe in God. Most of the veterans here already now this, but you are relatively new, and I'm guessing that you don't. I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He died for the sins of the world. Does this surprise you?

I also believe that my religious beliefs do not necessarily have to conflict with my field of study, which involves the doctrines of other religions (such as Buddhism, Taoism, and shamanism). I may not believe these other doctrines, but I feel I can learn from the study of them. I also do not believe that logic differs depending on your belief (or lack of belief) in God. I believe that God gave us all the same ability to reason, but we draw different conclusions because we reason based on different premises. You and I are beginning from a common premise, yet we see things differently. I do not want to be haughty and imply that you are lesser than me for not having studied what I study--everyone has different areas of expertise. But when it comes to mythology and oral literature, it is difficult for me to have a discussion with someone who adheres to exploded ideas and relies on canny knacks rather than study. Perhaps this is my failing.

But to address the point you made above: is it not equally as possible that these similar myths sprung out of a basic human desire to make sense of the world, and that this usually involved the idea of a deity? Why do they have to be the remnants of chopped up oral histories of Jehovah?

I will try to address your argument that Jesus is nothing like the hero archetype.

quote:

---

Jesus is the exception in my eyes. He is nowhere in the tanakh, which record Jewish belief from the beginning of man as they know it. Promises of a Messiah are, but he is not there himself as a man. He popped up at a dated time in history, and died at a dated time in history.

---

I do not see how this makes Jesus an exception. There are countless heroes who were born and died at specific times in history and who were thought to fulfill a prophecy (or prophecies).

quote:

---

He is nothing like any of the "archtype" stories of heros. His views were radical for the time he lived in. He was nothing like what the Jews thought a Messiah should be by their own prophecy. He was rejected and crucified, thought to be crazy by a lot of people. Even his own apostles, his closest friends, did not understand him or agree with him.

---

And you believe that this means he was nothing like the hero archetype? Because he was not recognized as a hero, because people did not understand him or thought he was crazy? This perfectly describes most exceptional people--people who do not fit the mold.

quote:

---

By all accounts--he should have been forgotten after he died.

---

By all accounts? By what accounts? This makes no sense. First you say he was radical, then you say that this is the very reason he should have been forgotten. I can't accept this. We forget the normal people. We forget those who blend into the background. We do not forget those who stand out. History is rife with radical and misunderstood figures, because they are the most memorable.

quote:

---

It is totally ILLOGICAL to me that his memory should have lived on past his death. It defies everything I understand and know about human nature.

---

If this is the case, you have a warped understanding of human nature. I don't mean that as an insult, it is simply the only conclusion I can draw from your protests.

quote:

---

If I wanted to create a legend and hero to found a religion, Jesus as he was in the Gosples is NOT what I or anybody else would write him to portray. He would have been a lot more aggressive, a lot more in tune with the teachings of the day, a lot more loved by the people, and died a martyr by hate by a small group, rather than fear of a two distinct large groups, to portray triumph, not defeat. He would have had specific, outlined teachings and rules--not the seemingly backward, hard to live up to, ideals that are written in the Gosples. But that is if I were "making it up".

---

For some reason, you are convinced that the attributes and characteristics possessed by Jesus would make him completely forgettable, but the opposite is true. The two large groups (the Romans and the Jewish leadership) that feared and attempted to destroy Jesus turned him into precisely what they were trying to avoid: a hero of the common people. If he had only been hated by a small group, he would not have been a martyr, and it would have been more likely that he would have been forgotten.

Let me share something interesting with you. When Christianity first came to Korea, the shamans adopted Jesus as a very powerful spirit. Why? Because he was unjustly executed, he died young, and he died without being married or having children. Sounds odd? Well, Korean shamans believe that resentment ("han" in Korean) is a very powerful force, and people who die unjustly often live on to become powerful spirits. It may seem strange at first, but the same idea exists in the West, where ghost often come into existence when the person dies "before their time is up"--that is, when they still have something left to do on this earth. The shamans didn't understand that Jesus accomplished precisely what he was sent here to do--to teach us, to guide us, and then to die for our sins. But they still recognized that he was a wronged hero of the people.

My fundamental problem with your argument is that I don't see why it is necessary to claim that Jesus does not fit the hero archetype. Are you afraid that if he did fit the archetype then he would lose his uniqueness?

Add to that the fact that your argument has no internal consistency. Perhaps the most interesting thing you said above, at least in terms of mythology, is that all the myths of humanity came from a time when God walked among men, but as time went on humanity forgot about the original God and invented their own. Yet you then go on to say that Jesus does not fit the hero archetype. If the myths of humanity express a collective memory of God and a basic desire to return to that state, why would Jesus not fit into that framework? I imagine that your answer will be something along the lines of humanity's twisted perception of God, but if you truly believe that the myths of humanity all ultimately point back to God, you do your argument a disservice by trying to place Jesus outside of that framework. If the mythological framework was the ultimate result of man's initial relationship with God, it would not make sense for Jesus not to fit into that framework, no matter how warped humanity's perception of God may have become.

This post has gone on far longer than I intended, and it is a bit disjointed, but I hope I've addressed your points. I would encourage you to make a broader study of myth rather than relying on what you perceive to be the case. For starters, try giving Alan Dundes a read, specifically the book "In Quest of the Hero." Dundes has an interesting piece in there entitled "The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus," where he applies Raglan's work to show how Jesus does, in fact, fit the hero archetype.

Forgive me if I do not frequent this thread regularly. I tend to avoid these discussions for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the amount of time they require (admittedly partly my fault for being so verbose, but there you have it).

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

BD, when I said that sex was a sin, it could have been substituted with anything that is considered a sin based on religion. The reason for my comment was to point out that saying the Bible says so works only for those that believe the Bible in the first place.

As far as the trinity, in order to make sense, I've heard it compared to an apple:
An apple has three parts, the core (God), The flesh (Holy Spirit), and the skin (Jesus). The core is where the seed and source of the fruit is, the flesh is where the flavor and nourishment come form, and the skin is is the outer shell that is first seen. Even though it is one apple, it is made up of three distinct parts.

I guess it's my turn to also thank Suho for his posts. I have found them very informative and unbiased, no matter how verbose.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

First of all, BD this

quote:

---

It is like dragons. Every culture in the world has dragons way back to their known beginnings. And they all have differences, but they all have very certain and distinct similarities too.

---

Is just not Factual!

My People don't have legends or stories about Dragons. None. Zippo. Nada.

Chew on that for a bit.

Post-Written era Figures? I can with great awe and inspiration point to the Mahatma Ghandi, as one. His idea and message of non-violence was unheard of (especially in how he not only believed in it, but practiced it!). Unfortunately, the world rejected his teachings, although he is revered by billions of Indians, and deeply respected by others such as myself. I would also point to Ron L. Hubbard and Scientology (though I personally don't care much for it, I recognize the acomplishment here) and the Mormons and Joseph Smith. I'm sure there are others.

Now, are you done with shooting yourself in the foot?

Suho--I understand your point about what I said. And that's my fault. But I can only speak of widely known figures when it comes to mythology. And I know very little at all about far eastern myth.

quote:

---

I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

---

I am sorry that I cannot put it into words exactly why I think what I think. And I am not forgetting that an oral history still existed along with written. The best thing I can do is give you examples of what kind of similarities I am talking about. This is one of many:

quote:

---

One of the most striking Sumerian myths describes Inanna passing through seven gates of hell into the underworld. At each gate some of her clothing and her ornaments are removed until at the last gate she is entirely naked. Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld kills her and hangs her corpse on a hook on the wall. When Inanna returns from the underworld by intercession of the clever god, her Uncle, Enki, according to the rules she must find someone to take her place. On her way home she encounters her friends prostrated with grief at her loss, but in Kulaba, her cult city, she finds her lover Dumuzi, a son of Enki, Tammuz seated in splendour on a throne, so she has him seized and dragged below. Later, missing him, she arranges for his sister to substitute for him during six months of the year. (compare Greek story of Persephone)

---

There's a long page about Persephone herself, and even she "evolved" within Greek culture from being the Queen of the underworld, to being taken down to the underworld by Hades. The article goes on to say:

quote:

---

Persephone Before the Greeks?
Many modern scholars have argued that Persephone's cult was a continuation of Neolithic or Minoan goddess-worship. Among classicists, this thesis has been argued by Gunther Zuntz (Zuntz 1973) and cautiously included by Walter Burkert in his definitive Greek Religion.

More daringly, the mythologist Karl Kerenyi has identified Persephone with the nameless "mistress of the labyrinth" at Knossos.

On the other hand, the hypothesis of a universal cult of the Earth Mother has come under increasing criticism in recent years. For more on both sides of the controversy, see Mother Goddess.

---

Which is all fine and dandy, but still just guesses and assumptions. And even though there are differences in the stories, the similarities of the two stories speak very loudly to me. I would expect differences. But that is not just a mere "idea from common elements" coming up independantly. They are entire stories. Does that make what I think about it all correct? No. But it's what makes the most sense to me. <shrug>

On a side note, Inanna is the same goddess as Akkadian Ishtar and Semetic Astarte. She can also be compared to the Greek Athena, since she was also considered the goddess of war. (I find it strange that war would be associated with a female diety at all--much less Inanna and Athena and completely independantly from one another.) And of course, Athena had an evolution of her own, before and during the Greek history as we know it, which anybody who cares to can look up. Inanna probably had an evolution too, but we don't know any writings that were before the Sumerian, so we cannot say. But I don't see a problem with seeing how different cultures influxing to areas over time contribute to these evolutions of the pantheons.

quote:

---

I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to accept

---

Because of the immigrations of man. And because of the tendency to assimilate over time. To say, with any credence at all, that each pantheon came up completely independant of one another, would be to say that man stayed put. And we know that didn't happen. I am not saying that one whole pantheon developed into another whole pantheon, then developed into another whole pantheon. All neat like in a row of chronological order. That would be illogical. I am not even saying that each culture didn't put their own unique creations to the mix, because ideas are continually forming and evolving. But certain figures and stories can be "traced". Like the Inanna/Persephone stories. They are too similar for me to totally disregard the thought that possibly groups of people from Sumeria immigrated north and west, taking Inanna with them, and over time, ancesters reached the area of Greece and the story got changed a little here and there along the way and assimilated into greece, then became the greek persephone, and some of her attributes given to Athena. That makes much more sense to me than both stories evolving independant from one another. There is no real proof of that though. But I don't see any real proof that the ideas came up totally independant either. That just seems to be the accepted view now. But I am not sure why, and can't find a reason. Maybe you could shed some light on that for me. Where is the inbetween from the sumerian Inanna to Persephone of Greece? That would be Turkey, which in ancient times were inhabited by Hittites.

quote:

---

The Hittites adopted many of the gods of the Sumerians and Old Babylonians. The odd thing about the Hittites, though, is that they seemed to have recognized that all gods were legitimate gods. Whenever they conquered a people, they adopted that people's gods into their religious system.

---

also, here is a link with more about the hittites and how they assimilated and evolved their pantheon.
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/hitit.htm#din

Many of the gods listed as original Hittite or Hurrian gods have a lot of references to words known from Sumeria, and Akkadia. Such as Ea, Apsu and Abzu, Suggesting that an even earlier, prehistoric migration brought at least some of these gods and godesses to this area. In the Imported list, Ishtar is named specifically. She is also mentioned by name in some of the myths listed associated with other gods. The story of Inanna is not given, but is known from sumerian and akkadian records that Ishtar and Inanna were same deities. With some probable changes. So we cannot assume that the just because the persephone like story isn't listed on that site of Hittite gods, that it did not exist in the Hittite culture. Each god and goddess had a long list of entertwining stories, and some of the ancient records could very well be destroyed or haven't been found.

Anyway, that's my case for the mixing and migration of religious ideas. The implications are pretty clear to me, at least for the Ancient middle eastern and Greek and Roman gods. And there are similar connections that can be made involving the Indus valley too. As far as far eastern mythology, I've never really tried to make any connections. Or with scandinavian mythologies. Maybe I'll try later on. Just to see if I can.

It's nice to know you are a Christian. And I don't feel like you are looking down on me. If you study this stuff more formally than I, I would expect you to question my ideas. But even though I have a knack, doesn't mean I rely just on that for my info.

quote:

---

There are countless heroes who were born and died at specific times in history and who were thought to fulfill a prophecy (or prophecies).

---

None that I was aware of. And none that started a new religion.

quote:

---

By all accounts? By what accounts? This makes no sense. First you say he was radical, then you say that this is the very reason he should have been forgotten. I can't accept this. We forget the normal people. We forget those who blend into the background. We do not forget those who stand out. History is rife with radical and misunderstood figures, because they are the most memorable.

---

Radical for the Jews. Maybe "radical" is not the word I should use. His teachings did not add up in the end to what the Jews figured the Messiah to be. He was the opposite of what they wanted. They realized he was not going to overthrow the Romans. His teachings were backward sounding. Blessed is the meek? Blessed is the persecuted? When they were being oppressed from Rome, how was that being blessed? Everything about Jesus has to be taken in context of the Jews ideas of what a "hero" was. What the Jews thought were attributes of the Messiah. And how the Jews have treated all other Messiahs. They forgot about them. Maybe this is not important for your point, but it is important to my point. My point being, that his ideas and claim to be Messiah had to get passed some Jews first to get to the rest of the world.

quote:

---

Are you afraid that if he did fit the archetype then he would lose his uniqueness?

---

No. That's just what I think. And once again, you have to leave the context of the Jewish in there.

And I understand how other people besides the Jews could sympathize with Jesus after the fact. And be the underdog kind of hero. But Jews are the ones who got it started. Without that, it would have never made it to Korea in the first place.

quote:

---

Add to that the fact that your argument has no internal consistency. Perhaps the most interesting thing you said above, at least in terms of mythology, is that all the myths of humanity came from a time when God walked among men, but as time went on humanity forgot about the original God and invented their own. Yet you then go on to say that Jesus does not fit the hero archetype. If the myths of humanity express a collective memory of God and a basic desire to return to that state, why would Jesus not fit into that framework? I imagine that your answer will be something along the lines of humanity's twisted perception of God, but if you truly believe that the myths of humanity all ultimately point back to God, you do your argument a disservice by trying to place Jesus outside of that framework. If the mythological framework was the ultimate result of man's initial relationship with God, it would not make sense for Jesus not to fit into that framework, no matter how warped humanity's perception of God may have become.

---

Not quite. If you ask anybody what God or Jesus is all about, most people, not all though I guess, would say Love. There may be a few other adjectives like judge or absent, thrown in there by some, but most I think would say love. And that I guess is correct. I didn't say just a collective memory of God. I said a remnant of a memory of God and other heavenly beings. Such as Angels. And not of the good variety. I am not about to get into the history of all that right now--but it's interesting stuff about them meddling in human life, teaching us things. The memory of these beings could have gotten past on and later mistaken for gods and goddess. Not just the real God. So no, I don't think Jesus fit in with this group at all. This group, if it indeed happened this way, went on to become later and later gods. These gods had wars, slept around, tricked each other, killed each other. So yes, I can say that I believe all religions came down from a time when God walked with man, and that Jesus doesn't fit the pattern that emerged. Because the angels who fell from grace would have been involved in all that too. And among us longer than God, I might add. According to the bible, quite a few came down after God had already removed himself from our presence.

And let me suggest that you read "The Jesus I Never Knew" by phillip yancey. He does a great job of showing how Jesus does not fit the mold of a hero. (jewish context) And does a much better job of putting it into words than I ever could. I can only hope I cleared myself up on why I think religious ideas spread around.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

WS--Gandhi? I've read differing views of where he got his beliefs from. That they were just regular Hindu views is one. That he read Leo Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is another, which was written by a man who was litterally trying to live up to the Sermon on the Mount given by Jesus. And I've read that Gandhi got his views from the New Testament itself. So which is it? Can you say for certain? I read a quote by him that said something of the effect of love and non violence were as old as time. That's close anyway.

Dragons--I should have said most. You must be from Austrailia I'm guessing?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Suho-10

BD-0.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bd, I am Native American Indian, Cherokee to be exact.

Mahatma Gandhi led his people to freedom, out from the Governship of British rule. And he did this with non-violence. I am not aware of a similar process ever succeeding in history.

As for what he believed in and stood for, I would suggest his extraordinary autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

This website is pretty good Mahatma Gandhi for the "short" version though.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-13-2005 17:13)

Cool Ruski, and thanks, i appreciate it.

and i will do some reading to catch up on all this tomorrow...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

if we don't believe we are sinners...we aren't.

---

I never, ever said that D-man. I said that without the Law, people don't know they need Jesus.
It is like speeding. If you were to do 55 in a 40, and not see the sign that says it is a 40, you are still breaking the law, and deserve punishment, regardless of what you knew. Knowing the law allows you to see your need for obeying it, and in the instance of God's Law, your inability to obey it, and your need for Jesus' perfect sacrifce to cover up your sins.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Because he fell off his a** and hit his head - that is when
he became a
believer.

---

No, he became a believer when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and struck him blind. I wonder what you would do if you believed that the very last image you would see is that of the man who's followers you have been persecuting. I guess we will find out sooner or later, won't we? I, personally, am with God on the fact that I would rather see it sooner and be able to invite you to the party at my mansion later, but it is all up to you.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

More telling than anything, is the total lack of information dealing
with
the childhood of Jesus

---

If you still want to believe with Dan Brown that the Bible is wrong about Jesus. It truly is up to you, but it would solve many of your problems if you would just read the Gospels. They tell of the tens of thousands of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, or at least a prophet who was totally different from other prophets. Your choice.

quote:

---

Raeubu said:

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the
"sinner". If you were a Jewish prostitute and suddenly somebody told you they
had a way for you to not be constantly unclean, what would you do? Maybe if you
were a leper? a tax collector? The fact is, Jesus appealed to those that weren't
reaping the benefits of the current institution. Christianity feeds on the fact
that there are people that are ashamed of themselves and want an easy way to get
rid of the burden.

---

Okay, I have lots for this one.
Jesus' followers did not just include tax collectors or prostitutes. They included Centurions and great buisnessmen. Also there are a few acounts of Pharisees and Saducees (those "reaping the benefits of the current institution") who followed Him. Jesus' message is not a respector of persons. Everyone is a sinner, and those who knew this best were those who were constantly told so by their peers. Thus Jesus' crowd was mainly the prostitutes, tax collectors, and so on. But Jesus said that those who come to Him are called by concience to ask His forgiveness. And concience is a dangerous thing, that can strike anyone at any time...
And Jesus does not get rid of the burden of sin, BTW. He clears your slate with God, but you still have to have Him help you out with the consequences, like depression, teenage pregnancy, addiction, and many others. Jesus does not give you an easy way out. Instead He allows you to go through them so that you will develope perseverance, and that perserverence will develope character, and that character will deverlope hope.
[BTW, I like your sig.]

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

(and we don't see the idea of the trinity laid out unitl a couple centuries
later, either).

---

We have the idea of the Trinity about 500 years before Jesus came. In the Psalms of David, and possibly even in the writings of Ezekiel.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And that a hell of a lot longer, and under more extreme circumstances, than the
xians can even begin to imagine.

---

The time period of Moses would put Judiasm as roughly twice the age of Christianity, right? Unfortunately, that is incorrect, because Jesus said that Christianity is not a new religion, but a continuation of the old one. Point? Christianity is just as old as Judiasm, just different.
It would be like my twin friends Curt and Craig Cazares. They do everything together, and are more or less the same. Right now they both have a job of cutting grass. Perhaps one decides that is a great career and continues cutting grass his entire life. Well, his brother disagrees and wants to go to school and become an enviromentalist or something else relating to agriculture. Whatever he becomes, he started as a grass cutter and a Cazares, and forever will have his roots there. They are the exact same age, one just incurred a transformation halfway through his life.
I know what you are thinking in the terms of persecution of the Jews. I will agree, that the Jews have had a rough history. But I want to ask you if the latest count of 69 million Christians martyred since Jesus (2000 years) comes close to the persecution of the Jews? How about the nearlry 60,000 killed in 2000? How about more than that whose lives have been crushed by Atheistic Communists? Or lives ruined by angry Muslim family members? Don't tell me that Christians don't suffer for their beliefs. If a normal person had to go through half of what the Christians in Nero's "party" had to go through, or what the Thundering Legion had to do, they would have peed their pants and broke down in tears.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

(Edited by Gideon on 08-14-2005 21:55)

quote:

---

We have the idea of the Trinity about 500 years before Jesus came. In the Psalms of David, and possibly even in the writings of Ezekiel.

---

You certainly need to qualify a statement like that with some specific quotes.

OF course, even if that *is* an accurate statement, it doesn't change the fact that we don't see it in christian writings until much later.

quote:

---

They tell of the tens of thousands of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, or at least a prophet who was totally different from other prophets.

---

What the hell are are you talking about, child? The LAWS given by God Himself to his Chosen People say whether or not one is a prophet or a Messiah - and Jesus wasn't, according to them. Just because some sect calls someone a "messiah" or "prophet" doesn't make it so.

Period.

You can try to twist it as you like, but that is the cold, hard fact of the matter.

quote:

---

Don't tell me that Christians don't suffer for their beliefs. If a normal person had to go through half of what the Christians in Nero's "party" had to go through, or what the Thundering Legion had to do, they would have peed their pants and broke down in tears.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, that is incorrect, because Jesus said that Christianity is not a new religion, but a continuation of the old one. Point? Christianity is just as old as Judiasm, just different.

---

This is so wrong, it is not funny. I'm going to officially warn you here, for this rubbish Gid. A continuation of the old one, just different? That is without a shadow of a doubt the stupidest thing you have posted on this board to date, IMO.

No-one has said that xians didn't and haven't suffered for their belief(s).

But that you are seriously attempting to say that the suffering of xians surpasses that of the Jews...I'm personally at a loss for words here.

Second, don't assume, in your young years, that you know what "normal" people are capable of.

"Normal" people are also xians, you nut.

With this post, you have totally tossed away any remaining shreds of tolerance, and any semblance of intelligence as far as I am concerned.

Reap what you sow.

Troll.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-14-2005 23:43)

Gid yer and Id...ee..ot!

Your analogy is mindless.

Speeding is a law...sinning is in the imagination of the indivdual.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WS--I guess I feel a little closer to you now knowing we share some heritage. But I have to tell you, Native Americans did have dragons. Not quite like European or Chinese dragons, but dragons none the less. I just watched a show about the myths and histories of Dragons on the History channel the other night, and they went into a lot of detail about north american dragons. And you can find native american dragons all over the web.

As for Ghandi, yes he is the first to actually use the non-violent approach that I know of too. TO USE IT. That, by no means, says the idea hasn't been around a looooong time. And it doesn't change the fact that Jesus preached it 2000 years ago. Or that the idea doesn't go back even farther.

I'm going to say something here that even my husband had a hard time grasping. I asked him the other night, what one word can all of the Ten Commandments be summed up into. And he said "Obey". I said No, try again. And he said "Thou shalt not..." and I said no, try again. He gave up. I told him that all of the Ten Commandments could be narrowed down to the word Love. He laughed at me and said I was crazy. I said no, think about it and you'll see.

It's easier to tell people Thou shalt not commit adultery, than to tell them to love your spouse like you love yourself.

It's easier to tell people Thou shalt not kill, or covet, or bear false witness, or steal than to tell them to Love your neighbor like you do yourself.

It's easier to tell people to have no other gods, and keep the sabbath holy than to tell them to Love God like you love yourself.

It seems to me that people need to be told and have it outlined exactly for them what they can't do, rather than to try and tell them if you truly love, you'll treat all people right most of the time on your own anyway.

Anyway, my husband came back later and said yes, you are right. I just never looked at it like that before. All the commandments hinge on love of others above self. If you don't love, you can't and won't keep them. Not to the degree and larger scale that you should or could anyway.

So love and non violence are a very very old (and continually overlooked) ideas that cynics say is for the weak. And a very hard and suffering idea on top of it. But Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. , the Filipinos, and the Eastern European countries have proved that it works. Even native americans proved it--look at how many many different cultures and spiritual beliefs shared this land for so long side by side! They may have warred among each other occasionally, but out of respect usually settled it agreeably during the time Europe was steeped in war and slaughter! If you want to get philosophical about it, you could say that non violence worked for Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho too. <shrug>

So in a sense, Gideon is right. Jesus didn't preach anything new. He just turned it around to the real meanings of the ancient commandments. The God of the Old Testament was Father like love--do what I say and I will reward you, or punish you if you don't. Period. The Jesus of the New Testament is Mother like Love--I'll always love and forgive you your mistakes as long as you are really trying to do what your Father says. Both sides of the One God. That's how I see it anyway, and how I finally reconciled the OT and the NT for myself.

Look at it however you want. But I like my idea, it feels good and right in my heart, and am sticking to it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-15-2005 11:14)

Bd - my People do NOT have Dragon legends. We have legends of the Little People, and Snake does play a role in some stories, but Snake is not a dragon.

There are Native American cultures that do, but mine do not. Those that do, that I am aware of, come mostly from Central/South America.

The Aborigines of Australia definitely have dragon legends, because they lived with true dragons - the giant Megalania, giant ripper lizard of Australia (now extinct), which is estimated to have grown to 5.5 Meters in length.

quote:

---

As for Ghandi, yes he is the first to actually use the non-violent approach that I know of too. TO USE IT. That, by no means, says the idea hasn't been around a looooong time. And it doesn't change the fact that Jesus preached it 2000 years ago. Or that the idea doesn't go back even farther.

---

If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. The Mahatma Gandhi was the first to do this (that I am aware of) and succeed. Not Jesus, not anyone else. Therin lies the massive difference - Mahatma Gandhi didn't just preach it.

quote:

---

So in a sense

---

Oh, that is a great way of determining things! If we go by this remark, then yes, everything is, in a sense, like everything else.

You need to be very careful, if you are going to try to lend support to Gid's position. Very careful.

And the God of the Old Testament was CERTAINLY not a loving God. Far from it. The God of the Old Testament was a vengeful, jealous god that you really didn't want to piss off.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-15-2005 12:08)

I'm not aware of any Cherokee dragons either. But, one old native american they interviewed on the show....I can't remember the name of the tribe, just that it was in the central part of north america,.....said he remembers stories told that in the old days, the tribes would have to hide from the giant (he gave a name I can't spell or pronounce). He said the stories told that the ground would shake with their passing.

Could be earthquakes. Could be dinosaurs. I thought it was interesting anyway.

And listen, I'm not arguing with you on the Gandhi point. I think we can agree that he was an extraordinary man and leader. I believe he was anyway. And he most certainly is the first one I've ever heard of to use the methods he used. But, I have my own theories as to why Jesus didn't use it himself to try and overturn Rome, instead of just preaching it, that I'm not even going to bother going into.

The God of the old testament, You see him your way, I'll see him mine--which does include a lot of fear as well as love. It's no big deal to me.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

He said the stories told that the ground would shake with their passing.

---

Ah! The stories of the Thunderbeast - not from my tribe, but yes, there are Native American tribes that do have legends about the Thunderbeast (and the Thunderbird, as well).

Hard to say from where they originated. I tend towards thunder and earthquakes, myself.

quote:

---

The God of the old testament, You see him your way, I'll see him mine--which does include a lot of fear as well as love. It's no big deal to me.

---

I'm curious how you can equate mass-murder with a loving image. After reading the Old Testament, I never came away from it with the feeling that the god portrayed in it was a loving god.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-15-2005 23:23)

quote:

---

The God of the old testament

---

I am sure I have already pointed out that God of Old Testament was developed through competing polytheistics Canaanite beliefs...

I know, but when it comes to eternal Disney Land, who cares... right?

-----
anyone interested enough to read on development of Yahweh, look here http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html



(Edited by Ruski on 08-15-2005 19:52)

I guess it depends on which story of mass murder one looks at. That sounds bad already, there was more than one mass murder by God LOL. I'll try to explain my thinking....but it's all just my beliefs and/or theories-for-fun, so, don't ask me to prove them. And it was hard, and took a long time for me to come to terms with the old testament God being a God of love.

I guess first you have to know that I think that God, if he created us in his image, has all the evil attributes in Him that man does.....he just uses them more prudently and his nature is the God side, where humans live more on the human side of the spectrum. Man has the capacity for great love toward one another....we just tend to hate and fight. It's much easier to do.

First, the flood. Chapter six of Genesis tells about, some people believe, where the angels came down and breeded with humans. This was an abomination. But Noah was "perfect in his generations". In other words, his line had resisted mixing with the fallen angels. In short, it was to wipe the earth of the hybrids, who were evil to the core. The book of Enoch tells this story in great detail. But, chapter six states that the giants were still in the earth after those days, so some eveidently escaped--which becomes pertinent with the order from God to completely massacre the Cannanites. It is my opinion that this flood was only local. The "known" world of the line of humans passing this story down. How the story of Gilgamesh fits in with this theory, I don't know. Gilgamesh was supposed to be part-god, part-human himself. Other than to say both the stories of Noah, and the stories of Gilgamesh had been passed down for a long time of prehistory and emerged as differing stories of the same story. I don't know.

Anyway, I can justify within myself God wiping out this kind of hybrid society. If God created humans, and then they mixed with angels knowingly, calling THEM god instead of God himself. Well, it's a justice of sorts. Depending on how much one believes in God. He has a right to be "jealous", if he created everything.

The firstborn of the passover in Egypt--God tried many other ways of convincing the Egyptians to release the Hebrews. Killing first borns was the last resort. He loved his people who had held on to Him and wanted to set them free. But even some of the Hebrews themselves had adopted Egyptian beliefs and gods, after living among them for so long. If any of the Hebrews didn't do what was commanded about a sacrifice and smearing the blood on the doorway, it showed his disbelief and lack of respect of God. So I think that any Hebrews who didn't follow it lost their firstborn son along with the Egyptians. This whole thing goes back to God the creator who demands respect that he deserves, and will not forever tolerate any who don't. It also forshadows the killing and sacrifice of HIS firstborn son....if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God that is.

The command to completely destroy the Cannanites--This goes back to the hybrids. The spies sent out to scope the land of Cannan came back with reports of the Giants. God ordered them to completely destroy these people, for the same reasons He caused the flood. But they didn't do that, according to the bible. Why didn't God just make sure He wiped them all out the first time with the flood? Complicated answer to that one. It has to do with God knowing the entire "play" before hand, but cannot force anyone to love and obey and accept him, and it have any real meaning to it. They have to do that on their own or it's pointless. Anyway, he did not wipe out Isreal because they disobeyed, but they were severly punished. Not obeying equals lack of respect, love, fear etc. But still, he gives them more time in the world to come back to Him the way he desires.

I tend to look at the world and it's entire history and population as a single "child of God". Starting off innocent like a baby. Then taking the beatings and strict discipline and rules of childhood as a whole, and getting the reasoning as a teenager through Jesus Christ. I guess I look at is as the world as a whole passed into young adulthood at the destruction of the Native American societies. People as a whole have not learned the lessons very well, but there are some who try a little, and some who try a lot. In the end, I guess we will all be judged independantly from one another. Because God would rather save those who give it their best rather than wipe everybody out completely. Out of love. At the end of Revelations, it reads to me as if all the "wicked" are still not all destroyed. That on the outside of the New Jerusalem, there is still "wickedness" going on. And they still have the chance to change their minds possibly, or never enter the Kingdom itself. The ones that are destroyed are the ones who entirely and completely reject God. And the Angels who started the whole mess are thrown into torment forever.

Like I said, this is all just theories for fun. There is no way of really knowing until the time comes I guess. And I would be lying if I said there aren't times when I think maybe we just die and that's it. But I have always believed deep down in a Supreme Being for as far back as I can remember, even though I did not grow up with religion of any sort. And searched in many places as I got older for one that felt right to me. and have come to believe in Jesus Christ. So I have to believe that God is Just, even if it hurts sometimes. A lot of the time. I can honestly say that my life has not been easy, and there have been many points when I was as low as you can get, money wise, spiritually wise, and morally wise. But I can also say that I always got what I needed somehow and someway--sometimes on faith alone, out of the blue and in totally unexpected ways after I had exhausted every other way I knew to get by. So I equate God with hard and tough, yet forgiving and empathetic, love. Some call it "will to survive". But I have seen and felt the marks of God on my life. My daughter, my only child, being one of them, in that she came in a time that looked like a child could be the worst possible thing to happen in my life. And I had been told that I could not have children because of an accident that I had and a certain infection I got from promiscuity that screwed up my works. But she was a gift that started opening my eyes and turning me around. And she was perfectly healthy, despite the fact that I did not know until I was five months pregnant, (Of course, I suspected at three months, but denied it as being impossible, so didn't go to the doctor) and so had indulged in very destructive behavior for a developing fetus. That changed once I found out for sure. Call it luck, or coincidence, one can reason it all away anyway they choose to. But I call it a miricle in my life. I had no clue what real love was until she came.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

The sound and quaking earth also describes the sounds the passing of the mighty buffalo herds made.

As for your loving god; http://www.evilbible.com/.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Like I said, this is all just theories for fun.

---

Ok then.

enjoy them =)

Yup. I'm not touching that post with a ten-foot pole.

quote:

---

The sound and quaking earth also describes the sounds the passing of the mighty buffalo herds made.

---

Good point.

How about a 6 foot Czech?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

6 figure check?

Ok, I'm in!

I was asked, so I told. <shrug>

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

So....

How does it feel, to be in the same "family" as Gid and Jade?

I am thinking the word 'dysfunctional' might be one descriptive word.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Please. This IS a philosophy thread. And if you all haven't figured out that I LIKE to romantisize (for lack of a better word) and be creative with the distant past, then you are all less intelligent than I gave you credit for. And boring on top of that. Playing "what if" is really fun for me, yet you act like I think the things I say are written in stone. That is far from the truth, and I don't believe I've ever given that impression. I believe in God, I believe in Christ and his teachings, and the rest is just....a big question mark that I am free to ponder and romantisize however I see fit but has no effect on my life at all. That by ne means means that I don't keep up with what's going on in the scientific world, or phooey it all away. I find all that just as facinating as the mythologies.

And to group me with gideon--a child who is just beginning to learn what the world is all about, and Jade, well I won't even get into her..... is very unfair. I'm really surprised at you WS.

Diogenes--I am unsure if you are calling *me* dysfunctional, or *us* as a group that webshaman grouped *us* in. Nothing you say really makes any difference to me though. I find that people who label other people usually have the same lable pasted all over them.

EDIT: I should also say on a side note, that as far as the God of the old testament, when it comes to the histories of judges and kings, I also theorize that human influence plays a big role in what God may have said or not even said at all to the prophets. People have always justified things through God, or blamed God. I have said this before, but you all seem to forgot that I have said it.


*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-17-2005 12:38)

quote:

---

And to group me with gideon--a child who is just beginning to learn what the world is all about, and Jade, well I won't even get into her..... is very unfair. I'm really surprised at you WS.

---

Really?

It surprises you to realize that you are in one, big xian family, that includes (among others) Gid and Jade?

I find that very interesting!

As for

quote:

---

Playing "what if" is really fun for me, yet you act like I think the things I say are written in stone. That is far from the truth, and I don't believe I've ever given that impression.

---

Well, yes, you have given that impression a few times...

quote:

---

then you are all less intelligent than I gave you credit for. And boring on top of that.

---

What, exactly, are you trying to communicate with this?

quote:

---

I believe in God, I believe in Christ and his teachings, and the rest is just....a big question mark that I am free to ponder and romantisize however I see fit but has no effect on my life at all.

---

Blocks are mine.

If so, first of all WHY then indulge in such activity, when it serves no purpose?

Second, in essence, you have just said that you have stopped learning. Why are you then here?

This place has brought me leaps and bounds forwards, in many areas. I have been exposed to ideas and ways of thinking (and beliefs) that I most likely would never have come up with, thought, or considered.

I am still learning.

If there ever comes a day when that is not true, then one can burn my dead remains.

quote:

---

It surprises you to realize that you are in one, big xian family, that includes (among others) Gid and Jade?

---

That is not the innocent statement I heard from your original post WS.

quote:

---

What, exactly, are you trying to communicate with this?

---

That I stated plainly that it was theory. Maybe I should have stated more plainly that it is was attempt to complete a "mythology" by using the book of Enoch that is not included in the bible. And that the beliefs I give clout to come from the events of my life.

quote:

---

If so, first of all WHY then indulge in such activity, when it serves no purpose?

---

In what activity? Romantisizing the past? If that is what you mean, then because I enjoy it. I enjoy learning about different cultures and wondering what may or may not have happened in prehistory. The "beginning" has always interested me deeply, but it does not affect my life in any way--no matter if we evolved, or God created us in one fell swoop. I have stated that before, and I still hold to it. And I look at it from and entertain all angles, not just one. It is just my nature. And the past is full of interesting things.

quote:

---

Second, in essence, you have just said that you have stopped learning. Why are you then here?

---

Uh, no. I don't think that's what I said. I'm always, always learning new things. Just because I don't apply some of those things in the same way some of you do, does not mean I have stopped learning. You and I have disagreed on many points, webshaman, but I have never flat out called you "wrong" in your beliefs (or lack thereof) about God or Jesus. Where you have called me wrong and belittled me concerning mine. You are entitled to take what you learn and interpret it how you see fit. I only ask the same respect, without being claimed to be losing touch with reality. That is stupid. I work in an environment filled with senseless and innocent death, and also recovery. It is foolish for one to think I could lose sight of reality when I am steeped in some of the worst (and best) aspects of it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

How does it feel, to be in the same "family" as Gid and Jade?

---

quote:

---

That is not the innocent statement I heard from your original post WS.

---

I see no reference to anything un-innocent (whatever that means) here. Maybe you could expand on that?

quote:

---

Uh, no. I don't think that's what I said. I'm always, always learning new things. Just because I don't apply some of those things in the same way some of you do, does not mean I have stopped learning.

---

If the things you say you are "learning", have no impact on your life at all, then you are not truly learning - you are instead accumulating information. This is totally different than learning.

Learning means assimulating information, and then applying it!, among other things.

And you say you don't apply any of it, not "some" of it.

So, which is it?

quote:

---

Where you have called me wrong and belittled me concerning mine.

---

Blatant untruth, and I find this really insulting. I have pointed out errors in your reasoning. I have not "belittled" you in your belief. Please show me where I did this.

When you speak in absolutes, you are going to get called on your reasoning process, and if there are errors in it, expect that to be torn apart.

Your post shows again that you tend to speak in absolutes -

quote:

---

I am free to ponder and romantisize however I see fit but has no effect on my life at all.

---

But later, you say

quote:

---

I enjoy learning about different cultures and wondering what may or may not have happened in prehistory. The "beginning" has always interested me deeply, but it does not affect my life in any way

---

And you are still speaking in absolutes.

Maybe you mean to say something different here? The information that you are accumulating is obviously not being applied to your life, indeed, it is not being applied at all, outside of feeding your "fantasy".

Therefore, if that is what you truly mean, then you are not learning, you are not growing, you are stagnant - and you block any change to the contrary.

"This is my life, this is what I believe, and any evidence to the contrary, irregardless of what it is, will not change that".

That is very closed and narrow-minded.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 14:25)

I haven't yet read past this, but wanted to get this in before I became distracted with other issues -

quote:

---

And to group me with gideon--a child who is just beginning to learn what the world is all about, and Jade, well I won't even get into her..... is very unfair. I'm really surprised at you WS.

---

This I agree with.

While I am somewhat baffled by the apparant flip-flopping and the like, Belladonna here is far from being in the jade or gideon category...

They are all xian.

I asked her how that feels.

*shrug*

It's not my fault that they all belong to the same large group.

For example, I am Cherokee, but my people belong to the group Native American Indian.

Does that mean that my Tribe is the same as that of the Apache? Or the Sioux? Or the Navaho?

Nope.

However, moving on - BD, you have to keep in mind that while you have been 'romanticizing', you have also been putting these purely creative ideas out there in the midst of a conversation about the reality of the situation.

If you are comfortable with basing your views on life on romaticized creations about the past, and putting faith in a divine being who's existence you seem to justify with those same romantic creations, then that's obviously your choice.

But when you try using those type of thoughts to justify it or explain to others....it's just not gonna float. Especially when you're having this conversation with a group of people who are, for the most part, well educated in the areas involved.

quote:

---

They are all xian.

I asked her how that feels.

*shrug*

---

Oh, c'mon WS...there was a very obvious implication in that statement.

Had you simply meant being a christian, there are plenty of other examples you might have chosen.

No DL, I am being serious here.

If I had wanted to compare her to the likes of Gid and Jade, then I would have done so in a direct manner.

I don't hold Bd to be the same as Gid and Jade.

However, Bd has stated that she is now a firm beliver - and thus, I wanted to know how she feels about such extremists that also hold the same firm belief in the same Faith.

I really do wonder how those like Bugs, Master Suho, Fig, and Bd feel about such.

I posted that remark, after Jade went and melted down over Homosexuality in the other thread, and Gid...well, did what he always does - trolling.

As I was a xian, I never once thought about all the extremists that are also xians. It was only later, much later, that I started realizing just how extreme some of them are.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 16:45)

quote:

---

I see no reference to anything un-innocent (whatever that means) here. Maybe you could expand on that?

---

I sincerely apologize if I misread your statement. But you know damn well I didn't.

quote:

---

When you speak in absolutes, you are going to get called on your reasoning process, and if there are errors in it, expect that to be torn apart.

---

quote:

---

Blatant untruth, and I find this really insulting. I have pointed out errors in your reasoning.

---

And just who the hell are you to judge my reasoning and if there are errors in it?? That is my whole point. You can't get the entire picture of how, what, and who I believe, or how I live my life, or who I am and how I reason out everyday things by the posts I make in these threads.

As for the other things about my "learning"--How does what may or may not have happened in prehistory affect my life or my beliefs? If we evolved, or if we were created? I still feel, and have always felt, a belief in my heart of a supreme being.

If all my learning of past cultures is applied in any way, it affects how I treat OTHER people, and learn to understand and respect THEIR own beliefs or how they live THEIR life. Something it seems like you know NOTHING about. Not by the way you have attacked on these threads because of someones beliefs.

quote:

---

"This is my life, this is what I believe, and any evidence to the contrary, irregardless of what it is, will not change that".

That is very closed and narrow-minded.

---

This shows me the total and complete misunderstanding of me by you. I am one of the MOST open minded people I know. And people who know me personally know that to be FACT.

You know what? That really pisses me off for you to say that *I* am narrowminded, as if you have a clue about me. Take a good long look at yourself, why don't you.

quote:

---

And you say you don't apply any of it, not "some" of it.

---

You need to go back and read my post. And take which things I am talking about in context WebShaman. You are totally twisting what I said, I made myself pretty clear and you are reading way too much into it.

I think I'm done here. Not that any of you could care less. The feeling is mutual. I'll just PRAY FOR YOU.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I'll tell you what I think of the extremeists. I think the same thing I've always thought. That they need to quit being sheep and pick up the bible and read for themselves and open their eyes to their own hypocracy.

But I try to be very tolerant of people like Gideon and Jade. They truly believe what they are saying because this is what they have learned. And this is what they have learned to READ in the bible. And they are entitled to that if that is what they want to do. Period.

I see the same thing in my work. People just believe whatever a doctor tells them without getting a second or third opinion. Most people are the same way about religion and preachers.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

But you know damn well I didn't.

---

Once again, I caution you to calm down. Read what I post, not what you think I post.

quote:

---

And just who the hell are you to judge my reasoning and if there are errors in it??

---

I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are posting on a public forum. Where others are reading and evaluating what you post. I am, first of all, just one of them. I examine what you post, evaluate it, and think about it.

I post my conclusions accordingly.

Second, I am a Mad Scientist. (*points to title*) Although I don't particularly think that makes me anything special, it does bring with it certain duties and responsibilities.

quote:

---

you can't get the entire picture of how, what, and who I believe, or how I live my life, or who I am and how I reason out everyday things by the posts I make in these threads.

---

Now that I also hold to be true, and I don't think I have any type of picture of such about you. I can only go from what you post. I think I mentioned that once to you before, and I find myself repeating myself here.

quote:

---

If all my learning of past cultures is applied in any way, it affects how I treat OTHER people, and learn to understand and respect THEIR own beliefs or how they live THEIR life. Something it seems like you know NOTHING about. Not by the way you have attacked on these threads because of someones beliefs.

---

*sigh*

If you are treating others differently, according to information that you have accumulated, than that is affecting your life (contrary to you saying "but it does not affect my life in any way")

Also, you accuse me of not being able to get the entire picture of you (as if I somehow suggested that I have), and then you turn around and do just that to me.

I haven't "attacked" someone because of their beliefs - that is an untruth. I have pointed out flaws in their reasoning. You may think or consider that to be an attack on belief, but it is not. I have posted many times, that I have no problem with what someone else believes, provided that they do not attempt to force it on others, or attempt to present it as fact when it is not so.

For example, I could really care less if Jade is a Catholic. She can believe whatever she wants. But when that belief starts affecting others (All Homosexuals are suffereing from "unpure" spirts, etc) that is where I draw the line.

Where do you draw the line?

quote:

---

You know what? That really pisses me off for you to say that *I* am narrowminded, as if you have a clue about me. Take a good long look at yourself, why don't you.

---

I can't recall calling you narrow-minded. I called such a statement as "This is my life, this is what I believe, and any evidence to the contrary, irregardless of what it is, will not change that".
" both closed and narrow-minded.

This is what I mean by POSTING ABSOLUTES!

if you are pissed off about that, that is your problem.

I personally don't know you, and I wouldn't know if you are or are not closed and narrow-minded. Again, I can only go from what you post. If you post such statements in absolutes, well, don't be surprised when you get called out on them.

quote:

---

You are totally twisting what I said, I made myself pretty clear and you are reading way too much into it.

---

On the contrary, I am only posting replies to what is posted. I haven't twisted anything, or taken you out of context (at least, not where I can see - please feel free to point out where I have). If you think you have made yourself pretty clear by using absolutes, then I can only go by that. I am in no way, form or manner reading too much into your post - on the contrary, I am readiny only what you actually post, and refraining from reading more into it.

I would suggest examining how you choose to communicate a bit closer. I am not the only one pointing such out to you.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 17:50)

WebShaman--First, I really want to apologize for my little outburst there. Message board conversations really frustrate me

quote:

---

Read what I post, not what you think I post.

---

quote:

---

I would suggest examining how you choose to communicate a bit closer. I am not the only one pointing such out to you.

---

I could make the same suggestion to you. That comment you made about "how does it feel to be in the same family..." was not only read that way by ME....as DL was so kind to point out. IF you REALLY meant it in the way you posted after.....to know what I thought of extremists (which Jade and Gideon are NOT what I consider extremists...they are just misinformed) then that is what you should have asked to begin with. Their names should not have even been brought up. And as good as you are about pointing out the minute details of what one says, and speaking in "absolutes" as you say, you should know to be careful about how you word things.

I am not even going to go further into the whole "pointing out flawed reasoning" thing.....it's pointless. You and I obviously have differing opinions on this. To me, someone with "flawed reasoning" is someone who is either mentally hanicapped, or mentally and/or socially unstable and/or ill. Or maybe a juvenile in certain instances, simply because they have not matured in their mental capabilities.

My reasoning is not flawed. My reasoning just brings me to different opinions and conclusions of certain matters than you. So you call my reasoning flawed. I am also not "misinformed", because I go to great pains to make sure I am not about most things I care about. I will make sure I get a very rounded view of a subject before I make any signigicant conclusions.

quote:

---

I can't recall calling you narrow-minded.

---

No, but I felt that it was greatly implied. After considering ALL the things I have posted, to even use the word narrow minded to describe even ONE sentance of mine, which is a sentence that I did not even write myself--but was the CONCLUSION you drew from what I said--gives a very unrealistic view of me.

quote:

---

For example, I could really care less if Jade is a Catholic. She can believe whatever she wants. But when that belief starts affecting others (All Homosexuals are suffereing from "unpure" spirts, etc) that is where I draw the line.

Where do you draw the line?

---

"Statements" do not hurt anyone. Using the example of Jade and her issues with homosexuality, if anyone should be offended, it is me. I don't know about anyone else here, but I openly stated my sexual orientation, and even though I am married to a man, and faithful in my marriage, I am STILL and always will be, a bi sexual. I tried to show her my veiwpoint, obviously she did not get it. So I am ignoring any statements she makes concerning sexuality from that point on. It only affects me if I let it. Now if she were to say something to ME PERSONALLY about my orientation, then I'd have to say something. But I would try not to do so in anger, or stoop down to her level of beratement and judgement. I couldn't absolutely promise it wouldn't go there though.

This is just how I personally deal with this kind of thing. <shrug>


*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-18-2005 14:26)

Yo yo Belladona, check this out! Hot ehh?

I

quote:

---

really do wonder how those like Bugs, Master Suho, Fig, and Bd feel about such.

---

Without involving them to post.. I am just about positive, Bugs, Fig, Suho feel the same way about homosexuality as I do. If so, then label them extremist too. Ask them to come on board a give an honest opionion of how they feel. I dare them to come on. If they don't its because maybe the feel they might be labled as extremist too?
Its really silly considering who is doing the name calling in regard to extremist. It all boils down to fear. Fear that some persons are going to ram down Christianity in peoples throats. Or the whole world is going Christian. And maybe it is.


And for the record, extremist is not what I am. This may be percieved by all you who speak for a liberal agenda to call all Catholics, Protestants who think the act of homosexuality is sinful. Then Christ was an extremist.


Homosexuality is harmful to the soul. If your are homosexual but do not act in regard to homosexual tendencies it is not sinful. If this affects you personally I am sorry. But this is how the majority of people in the world feel too. So label them all extremist as well. To sanction this lifestyle as legitimate in the eyes of God one would have to be in the state of Christian confusion.

And Bel, calm down. These guys live for getting a rise out of you. They have been doing it from day one. They are just posting opinions. And so are you for that matter.

If I come across radical its only because I speak for my faith and I am not afriad to tell anyone else I come across if they ask me how I feel.

Some Christian confused who have not yet acquired wisdom in the spiritual laws of God may think homosexuality is natural, but its a lie.

You cannot agree with some of Christianity. You cannot be a cafeteria Christian by picking and choosing what you want to believe. Either you are one or not. Christianity is about TOTAL submission.

So how do you propose we eradicate homosexuality Jade?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

But this is how the majority of people in the world feel too.

---

Ahhh....so you now speak for the world? Good to know...

quote:

---

Christianity is about TOTAL submission.

---

Ok. But to who, or to what?

To God? To Jesus? To Benedict? To one set of writings about god and jesus, or to another set of writings about god and jesus?

To what, in your opinion, is what god wants of you? Or to what, in some leader's opinion is of what god wants of you?

quote:

---

These guys live for getting a rise out of you. They have been doing it from day one.

---

You obviously have an extremely warped perception, dear.

quote:

---

Belladonna said:To me it's just,......................

---

WOW! For one who thinks little of their knowledge, your long rant showcases the opposite!

Thanks for the knowledge BD! Even if you think you DON'T have a clue.

No that's a post!

Hey, WS, thanks for calling me a child. You really put things in perspective for me. I have much more to learn from the stand point I am in now, but my beliefs are what they are now. I would really like it if you could respect me for who I am, and learn to acknowledge my point of view. Thank you.

DL, the references to the trinity I am refering to are the Father (aka. Sovereign LORD) in the vast majority of the OT, the Holy Spirit as refered to from David, and the mysterious appearance of one "dressed in Linen" who put a mark on the heads of those to be saved. That mark was in the form of a cross. Circumstancial, yes, but not to be dismissed either.

Bell, I think what you were trying to say about us in the family of Christ is that we are family members, yes, but like most families no one sees exactly eye to eye. No one. So I count Bell and Jade and Ram and Suho and anyone else on here I forgot (sorry) as a brother or sister and I would gladly help them in any way I can.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

WS, is the question how I feel about homosexuality or about being lumped in with "extremists"? I'm happy to answer either.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig, if you so wish, please post to both - how you really view Homosexuality (remember, Jade challenged you to post that - not me) - I'm more interested to know how you feel about people like Jade and Gid who profuse to be "true" believers, and everyone else who believes differently then they are not "true" believers.

Such as this

quote:

---

If I come across radical its only because I speak for my faith and I am not afriad to tell anyone else I come across if they ask me how I feel.

Some Christian confused who have not yet acquired wisdom in the spiritual laws of God may think homosexuality is natural, but its a lie.

You cannot agree with some of Christianity. You cannot be a cafeteria Christian by picking and choosing what you want to believe. Either you are one or not. Christianity is about TOTAL submission.

---

Since Bugs rarely posts here anymore, only you and Master Suho are representing the "thinking" xians - Bd as well.

Bd, I'm going to refrain from responding to your post, because I feel my responses tend to confuse you and I see no real constructive means in that.

quote:

---

Hey, WS, thanks for calling me a child.

---

You are most welcome, Troll.

Total submission?

Reminds me of the old one about what to give a masochist for xmas....a sadist.

I suppose these poor wights also take brambles and flail themselves at Easter in a pathetic attept to prove their piety.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Quite a wide open question WS but I'll see what I can do.

As far as homosexuality I've got a variety of thoughts and no definitive conclusion. I do believe, as per the bible, that homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe that it's a sin much like others. We all have a bent towards something, whether it be lust, lying, stealing, drinking...there's always something that tempts you or that you're weak to. If you give in to that bent you become an adulterer, a liar, a thief, an alcoholic, or in this case a homosexual. I can't say for sure that homosexuality is genetic or not as there seem to often be similar environmental circumstances surrounding individuals who participate in that lifestyle.

I do strongly agree with one aspect of what jade said, that being xian is an all or nothing proposition, you either believe the bible is truth or you don't. Sin, biblically speaking, becomes sin when you know you're doing something wrong, and those that would position themselves as xian yet live an openly homosexual lifestyle are in my opinion completely ignoring sections of scripture and participating in something they know is against God's will (whether they've justified it to themselves or not). Does this mean they're not xian? absolutely not, but they are caught up in a sin that they're denying.

I wouldn't consider Gid or jade extremist, I might not agree with all that they believe but I think their hearts are in the right place. To be honest I don't like being lumped in with much of any group labeling themselves xian these days, I am active in a church and in several ministries but I feel that the western church as a whole really misses the mark. I've been doing some reading lately that you, WS, or DL might find interesting, its a xian book written from a very outside-the-church-box perspective.

quote:

---

Sometimes I think it is easier for you and me to believe Jesus is God now that He is in heaven than it might have been back when He was walking around on earth. If you would have seen Jesus do miracles, and if you were one of those who were healed by Him or if you were one of the disciples, then it would have been easier, but for most people, especially the Jews, Jesus would have been a stumbling block.

At the same time, however, we are at a disadvantage because the Jesus that exists in our minds is hardly the real Jesus. The Jesus on CNN, the Jesus in our books and in our movies, the Jesus that is a collection of evangelical personalities, is often a Jesus of the suburbs, a Jesus who wants you to be a better yuppie, a Jesus who is extremely political and supports a specific party, a Jesus who has declared a kind of culture war in the name of our children, a Jesus who worked through the founding fathers to begin America, a Jesus who dressed very well, speaks perfect English, has three points that fulfill any number of promises and wants you and me to be, above all, comfortable. Is this the real Jesus?

---

The book is called Searching For God Knows What by Donald Miller and is a quick and rather insightful read, into human nature if not xianity. He has another book called Blue Like Jazz which is subtitled "non-religious thoughts on Christian spirituality" that's also a great read. Both these appealed to me because they get away from political agendas and focus on the idea that xianity as a whole is relational, not something built on formulas. The church has become a negative icon for so many, something they've been hurt by or just don't want to associate with. As individuals xians can affect an immense number of people that will never step inside church walls, they simply have to live out their faith and let their lives affect others. One other quote from Blue Like Jazz nailed this for me:

quote:

---

In a recent radio interview I was sternly asked by the host, who did not consider himself a Christian, to defend Christianity. I told him that I couldn't do it, and moreover, that I didn't want to defend the term. He asked me if I was a Christian, and I told him yes. "Then why don't you want to defend Christianity?" he asked, confused. I told him I no longer knew what the term meant. Of the hundreds of thousands of people listening to his show that day, some of them had terrible experiences with Christianity; they may have been yelled at by a teacher in a Christian school, abused by a minister, or browbeaten by a Christian parent. To them, the term Christianity meant something that no Christian I know would defend. By fortifying the term, I am only making them more and more angry. I won't do it. Stop ten people on the street and ask them what they think of when they hear the word Christianity, and they will give you ten different answers. How can I defend a term that means ten different things to ten different people? I told the radio show host that I would rather talk about Jesus and how I came to believe that Jesus exists and that he likes me. The host looked back at me with tears in his eyes. When we were done, he asked me if we could go get lunch together. He told me how much he didn't like Christianity but how he had always wanted to believe Jesus was the Son of God.

---

I don't know if that answers any of your questions or simply creates more...but i think it's a fairly accurate depiction of how i feel about a lot of things at the moment.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 08-19-2005 23:24)

Fig, kindly elucidate the following;

quote:

---

I can't say for sure that homosexuality is genetic or not as there seem to often be similar environmental circumstances surrounding inidividuals who participate in that lifestyle.

---

I am particularly interested in the part where you allege there are similiar 'environmental' circumstances.

BTW, your sentence there is incomplete as well, you failed to finish the thought. As well, current scientific research does show genetic commonalities in those who are acknowledged homosexuals.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

you either believe the bible is truth or you don't.

---

This particular part I have a serious problem with.

You yourself have posted here on *many* occasions about how there are some parts of the bible that are literal, there are some parts that are metaphorical, and there are some parts which simply don't apply, as they were only meant in a certain context, etc.

How can the bible either be truth or not, when it is all open to how you want to perceive it?

Are we going to go on a gnostic trip here, and say that you must posess the 'secret knwoledge' from the savior to be able to properly interpret it?

If it so black and white that it must either be all true or none...then we have no choice but to all take every word completely literally.

If you argue that is not the case, then we must also eliminate the idea of beleiving that the bible is 'either truth or not'.

Once we open it up to individual perception, the black and white is completely removed.

You can even say that the view you are presenting is an 'all or nothing' situation.
If you must beleive that the bible is truth, and accept it completely, then you must also be willing to forgo your interpretation, and take it literally cover to cover.

I know you are not willing to do that....

I think this is a very significant problem, and am curious how you respond to it.

(to clarify - I *know* that it is your view that you *don't* have to take the bible literally cover to cover. my argument is, if you make the acceptance of bible as truth a black and white issue, then that *must* carry through to the meaning of the bible as well, or the argument is lost.)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

people like Jade and Gid who profuse to be "true" believers, and everyone else
who believes differently then they are not "true" believers.

---

And when did I ever say that WS? I believe that anyone who follows Christ in their heart is a true believer, whether Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, or any other. How do I or anyone else know the workings of a man's (or woman's) heart?

Thanks for that book referal Fig, I think I will pick that up. That is something I have been thinking about, but have not formulated yet. Maybe that book can help.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Are we going to go on a gnostic trip here, and say that you must posess the
'secret knwoledge' from the savior to be able to properly
interpret it?

---

I'm not going to say it because you will not like it.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Diogenes, I read some excerpts out of a book (and the author and name escapes me) that discussed a number of common characteristics that often turn up in the background of those living a homosexual lifestyle. If i remember correctly they were dicsussing factors like an absent or abusive father, past sexual or physical abuse, and a controlling/domineering mother. How much validity there is to this I don't know, but I have found similar family situations in the lives of a number of gay people that i've known. I'm not familiar with research that shows definite genetic similarities but I'd be interested to see anything you have supporting that.

DL, I follow what you're saying but i dont entirely agree. Maybe 'truth' isn't quite the correct phrase, but i do think that the bible (despite past political and social pressures and modifications) is divinely inspired and God's letter to us. As such, and as you know of me, I think that there's room for interpretation in a lot of the books. Theological research (as opposed to secret gnostic-esque knowledge) gives us a clear picture of the different books intentions, whether they be poetic (song of solomon), instructions for certain groups in a certain time (leviticus), songs written to God (psalms), or more historical. I don't claim any sort of special interpretation, I've just done my homework unlike most xians who tend to take the bible at its simplest face value.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 08-20-2005 23:24)

WS, you will have to excuse my poor memory, but why is it that you label me a "troll?" I will accept names if they describe me, but I dislike being called things out of malice or spite.

Jade, do you think that a homosexual who becomes a Christian and desires to do God's Will, yet continues in homosexual activity is less of a Christian than those who do not?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Here is a start Fig; http://members.aol.com/gaygene/

There is a definitive and operative word in your third sentence you must pay more attention to "Often".

The family difficulties you refer too are also often quoted in the cases of mass murderers and other criminals.

They are not definitive by any stretch of the nose.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I don't claim any sort of special interpretation, I've just done my homework unlike most xians who tend to take the bible at its simplest face value.

---

I can accept that.

But it seems that no amount of research will ever close the great gaps in the varied interpretations of biblical passages. Obviously a big part of the problem is that many people simply want to make the bible mean what they want. But I beleive that looking at it as divinely inspired is the biggest stumbling block.

Designating something as an absolute, but then leaving it open to such varied interpretation just doesn't work for me.

It also seems, as has been discussed plenty of times in the past, that if there were a god who had such important things to say to his people, he'd leave it perfectly crystal clear.
Of course, I'm sure several people will immediately respond "but it *is* crystal clear!" which is fine and dandy, except that even among the christians here in this forum, the view changed drastically on almost every area.

But that's another tangent for another time

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I'm not going to say it because you will not like it.

---

ok

quote:

---

quote:
WebShaman said:

people like Jade and Gid who profuse to be "true" believers, and everyone else
who believes differently then they are not "true" believers.


And when did I ever say that WS? I believe that anyone who follows Christ in their heart is a true believer, whether Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, or any other. How do I or anyone else know the workings of a man's (or woman's) heart?

---

I think that fits what I said nicely. You have your description of what a true believer is (and everything else is not a true believer, by default), and Jade has hers.

So the Jews, who do not follow Christ, are not true believers, according to your definition, right?

As for why I call you a Troll?

Because anyone, who has been "reminded" of past mistakes ad infinitum, but continues to make the same ones again and again, can only either be

a) Stupid, moronic, etc,

or aware of that and that makes them a

b) Troll

Would you prefer that I stop labeling you as Troll?

If you are not aware of what a Troll is, I suggest you look it up.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-21-2005 00:52)

Diogenes, my use of 'often' may be inaccurate, it's been a while since I reviewed the text in question. While those instance may not be definitive, a lot of what i refer to in this situation is knowledge garnered from firsthand observation; those experiences tend to carry quite a bit more weight than random numbers published in a piece of research somewhere. And I'm curious, are you arguing that environment has no bearing on shaping an individual?

DL, I will totally agree that on a wide variety of theological issues there are a wide variety of interpretations. The thing is, a lot of those (most actually) are fairly inconsequential to my daily faith. Loving my next door neighbor or treating the cashier at the gas station with respect aren't affected too much by how exactly creation played itself out as per the account in Genesis. Christ came to create a new covenant, separate from old Law, and by being "religious" and getting hung up on minor theogical issues the various splintered factions of the western church (and many individual xians) are simply keeping themselves from being effective.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

So, just to nitpick a litt e further (though for the record, I do - in general - understand and appreciate your view) -

quote:

---

and by being "religious" and getting hung up on minor theogical issues

---

Minor to you, essential to others.
And that is part of the problem.

And of course, there are issues that are far more directly to christianity, not just things like creation. As we've discussed many times, most of the real differences faded out in the about the 4th century, leaving a fairly singular course of development in the big picture, but if you look at any of these discussions here, some of the basic precepts are still not agreed upon by the relatively small number of christians who post in these topics.

Sure, jesus is the savior, jesus is god, etc. But beyond that, interpretation gets awfully varied...

{{edit -

oh, and this part:

quote:

---

re simply keeping themselves from being effective.

---

From being effective christians, yes.
Unfortunately a lrge number of them have been all to effective at spreading ignorance and fear (as can be witnessed by this 'id in our science class' nonsense that is all too likely to really end up happening, based purely on ignorance).

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-21-2005 15:35)

Fig, where you theory fails and points out your bias against gays is; there are a lot of people who grow up in the conditions you describe, relatively few of them become either criminals or gay.

If your theory had even the vaguest chance of holding water the incidence of either or both would be much higher.

In any event, a person's sexual inclinations are their business and nobody elses.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

As to how to read the Bible, christians could take a cue from the Lord.
Jesus told stories to illustrate a point, and this is infact the "litterary style" of God, because that's who Jesus is - The Big Guy Himself.
Infact, none of his stories where meant to be percieved as "true" in the sense that they actually happened at one point or another, but rather as "true" in the sense that they had an important point to make.
- The modern approach, infact, and one often used today.
Since the Lord/Jesus used to relate stories this way, why should I expect the Bible to be an exception, meant to be read as absolute truth?
If anyone of you of faith could explain this, it would be very interesting.
- Especially since the Bible, read as absolute truth, makes no friggin' sense whatsoever, but read as a discussion about morals, it greatly impacts the development of western culture.
Why do christians always diminish the Bible - trying their damnest to make it appear as some deranged nutcase dreamt it up?
That may be the case, but I dont get why this is such an important task for christians anyway.
What actual support is there that the Bible is supposed to be read that way, except that a bunch of old senile geezers said so, probably after one of their many frequent heartattacks?

(^-^)b

Gid, definitely check both of them out, great reads. I don't quite agree with everything he says but he definitely gets you thinking about whether the things we prioritize are really so important.

DL, I agree for the most part, and I think that what you said really illustrates the problem with western xianity in general. If you look at Christ's life in the bible he did one thing: he loved people. He wasn't concerned with people going to someone else's church, what denomination they were, if they thought drinking or dancing was ok, etc. And Paul later reiterates those things, many of his letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth, eand other, deal with their petty squabbles on theological issues while ignoring or even condoning immoral behavior.

Xianity as a whole is immensely ineffective, and as a friend of mine (who's a pastor) once told me, "Preachers aren't going to change the world." If individual xians quit worrying about what those around them were doing and simply got into their lives, loved them, and let their own lives be examples of how they were different and how God has changed them...well, they could change the world.

Diogenes, I'm hardly biased against gays and have no problem with letting anyone live the lifestyle they want to. Simply disagreeing with someone's lifestyle doesn't make me biased against them.

As far as environmental circumstances, I realize that many people grow up in less than ideal family situations and end up just fine. However, if you read what I wrote earlier I mentioned that we all have a "bent" towards something, whether that's genetic, spiritual, etc., i don't know. We may or may not choose to give in to that desire, and the right (or wrong) influences around us can certainly contribute to those choices.

I do believe people's sexual orientation is their own decision and something I'm not that concerned about, hence my lack of posts on the subject.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I rather have a suspicion many of the 'stories' attributed to the the very likely mythological xist, predate his alleged existance by several thousands of years.

Fig, trying to attribute life-style and upbringing as a 'cause' of gayiety is one of the typical ploys used by the anti-gay religious crowd along with the insisyance it is a 'Choice", so perhaps you will forgive me for concluding you share thos sympathies?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I'll take clarification for a thousand alex
Xian
Xianity

In my line of work, these chinese words displayed phonetically;
SHY-IN
SHY-AN-A-TEE

WTF?

X = the cross, christ

so xian = christian, just as xmas = christmas

quote]Jade, do you think that a homosexual who becomes a Christian and desires to do God's Will, yet continues in homosexual activity is less of a Christian than those who do not?[/quote]


Gideon, I don't believe one can judge in who is more of a christian than another. Only Christ can. I cannot presume to be judge and jury on the soul. Christ knows the heart of the soul and only he can determine the way of the heart. Sin comes in all forms. The sin of acts of adultery and homosexuality are sins. They are both against God's will. We judge the act of sins, not the sinner. We ourselves are no angels and sinners ourselves, so for us to point the finger on one who sins is wrong. For those who have not accepted Christ in their lives, it confusining of them in how they see a Christianity view of the homosexual lifestyle. Where we see compassion, prayer and love for all regardless of lifestyle, they percieve it as hatred, bigtory and no compassion. Because that is what they choose to believe out of anger. We all as a Christian family, want to remain a family. When we see one acting contrary to the will of Christ, it sadens us, because it sadens Christ who gave his mortal life willingly for us. . Therefore we counsel and pray for the one who is confused or just willfully sinning regardless of the consequences. I have homosexual friends, a transvestite in particular was a family friend growing up. He knows how we feel and that he needs prayers, but so do I, so he prays for me. God will hear him too regarless of how he is living. What is the difference between an adulterer and a homosexual who tries to do the will the God but continures to sin because they are weak. We, too try and keep sinning.

quote:

---

Since the Lord/Jesus used to relate stories this way, why should I expect the Bible to be an exception, meant to be read as absolute truth?
If anyone of you of faith could explain this, it would be very interesting.
- Especially since the Bible, read as absolute truth, makes no friggin' sense whatsoever, but read as a discussion about morals, it greatly impacts the development of western culture.
Why do christians always diminish the Bible - trying their damnest to make it appear as some deranged nutcase dreamt it up?
That may be the case, but I dont get why this is such an important task for christians anyway.

---

This view is not the view that my faith has. Though the bible is a recorded history and teachings of the faith, we believe the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth because Christ holy spirit is living and breathing the active church.. The holy scriptures are a tool to use in helping us, but must be interpreted in the right way to achieve the truth that one seeks. An example of this is how there are 1000 views for the story of Genises who some take literally. Misuse of literalizations are used in every context of the holy scriptures. Thats why I don't believe the intention of the bible as being the sole source of Christianity was ever considered by the early apostles and great prophets. Its is our view that there is more to Chrisitanity than the holy scriptures. The truth is Jesus the man/god and what he spoke and stood for.

You are a very confused person. here is a little something which will doubtless only add to that confusion; http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

Note the differences in translating certain Greek words and the preference for the conservatives to choose the most negative interpretation in order to support their biases.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

X = the cross, christ so xian = christian, just as xmas = christmas

---

Danka DL.

[quote]You are a very confused person. here is a little something which will doubtless only add to that confusion;


In my view the same could be said about you. The view you posted again seeks one persons own opinion which has no basis.

quote:

---

They view it as valid today as it was in the first century CE. Verse 6:11 states clearly that once gays and lesbians become saved, then they will no longer wish to engage in homosexual activities. They will presumably become heterosexuals From a forum on homosexuality and the Bible in the Philadelphia Inquri

---

Everyone is issued the invitation, but doesn't mean we can all accept the invitation. No one person knows what Christ will decide on each soul's destiny. If a sinful person gives total submission to Christ than I can see them leaving their practicing gay lifestyle. Its a very hard path to follow but with much discpline, faith and endurance one can achieve this.


Homosexuality in the Bible:


Why did God destroy Sodom? There seems to be a number of different opinions in our changing world, so perhaps it's best (as of course it always is) to let The Word of God in The Holy Bible account speak for itself. The entire story of Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Genesis chapters 18 and 19, along with numerous other references throughout the Bible. Here are a few excerpts -


"The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city." (Genesis 19:1)

"He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (Genesis 19:3-5)

"The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here - sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to The Lord against its people is so great that He has sent us to destroy it." (Genesis 19:12-13)

"By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then The Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from The Lord out of the heavens. Thus He overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in those cities - and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back and she became a pillar of salt." (Genesis 19:23-26)

"The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves." (Isaiah 3:9)

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
Fact Finder: Did the apostle Peter say that what happened to Sodom is an example of what is going to happen to the wicked and ungodly?
2 Peter 2:6-8


Regardless if you feel that this city was not destoryed because of rampant homosexualiaty, it was destroyed because of sexual pervsions.

Jude 7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Biblical scholars debate the proper English interpretation of this passage. Some scholars feel that the "strange flesh" is a reference to homosexuality, while other scholars feel that the "strange flesh" involved refers to the citizens of Sodom seeking to engage in sexual relations or the rape of non-mortals.

As I always said - the Bible does not explicitly forbid Homosexuality.

I believe that most xians are very, very confused when it comes to this point.

[quote]You are a very confused person. here is a little something which will doubtless only add to that confusion;


In my view the same could be said about you. The view you posted again seeks one persons own opinion which has no basis.

quote:

---

They view it as valid today as it was in the first century CE. Verse 6:11 states clearly that once gays and lesbians become saved, then they will no longer wish to engage in homosexual activities. They will presumably become heterosexuals From a forum on homosexuality and the Bible in the Philadelphia Inquri

---

Everyone is issued the invitation, but doesn't mean we can all accept the invitation. No one person knows what Christ will decide on each soul's destiny. If a sinful person gives total submission to Christ than I can see them leaving their practicing gay lifestyle. Its a very hard path to follow but with much discpline, faith and endurance one can achieve this.


Homosexuality in the Bible:


Why did God destroy Sodom? There seems to be a number of different opinions in our changing world, so perhaps it's best (as of course it always is) to let The Word of God in The Holy Bible account speak for itself. The entire story of Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Genesis chapters 18 and 19, along with numerous other references throughout the Bible. Here are a few excerpts -


"The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city." (Genesis 19:1)

"He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (Genesis 19:3-5)

"The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here - sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to The Lord against its people is so great that He has sent us to destroy it." (Genesis 19:12-13)

"By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then The Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from The Lord out of the heavens. Thus He overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in those cities - and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back and she became a pillar of salt." (Genesis 19:23-26)

"The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves." (Isaiah 3:9)

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
Fact Finder: Did the apostle Peter say that what happened to Sodom is an example of what is going to happen to the wicked and ungodly?
2 Peter 2:6-8


Regardless if you feel that this city was not destoryed because of rampant homosexualiaty, it was destroyed because of sexual pervsions.

Jude 7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Biblical scholars debate the proper English interpretation of this passage. Some scholars feel that the "strange flesh" is a reference to homosexuality, while other scholars feel that the "strange flesh" involved refers to the citizens of Sodom seeking to engage in sexual relations or the rape of non-mortals.

1) where'd you copy that from?

2) where in any of that is there *any* direct reference to homosexuality being bad?

As I stated, there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly forbids Homosexuality.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah I know. I fail to see any explicit reference in it that strictly forbids Homosexuality, and only Homosexuality.

Found these sources to courter views that homosexuality can be treated to reverse it.

2) SAME-SEX ATTRACTION AS A SYMPTOM


Individuals experience same-sex attractions for different reasons. While there are similarities in the patterns of development, each individual has a unique, personal history. In the histories of persons who experience same-sex attraction, one frequently finds one or more of the following:


Alienation from the father in early childhood, because the father was perceived as hostile or distant, violent or alcoholic, (Apperson 1968 ; Bene 1965 ; Bieber 1962 ; Fisher 1996 ; Pillard 1988 ; Sipova 1983 )
Mother was overprotective (boys), (Bieber, T. 1971 ; Bieber 1962 ; Snortum 1969 )
Mother was needy and demanding (boys), (Fitzgibbons 1999 )
Mother emotionally unavailable (girls), (Bradley 1997 ; Eisenbud 1982 )
Parents failed to encourage same-sex identification, (Zucker 1995 )
Lack of rough and tumble play (boys), (Friedman 1980 ; Hadden 1967a )
Failure to identify with same/sex peers, (Hockenberry 1987 ; Whitman 1977 )
Dislike of team sports (boys), (Thompson 1973 )
Lack of hand/eye coordination and resultant teasing by peers (boys), (Bailey 1993 ; Fitzgibbons 1999 ; Newman 1976 )
Sexual abuse or rape, (Beitchman 1991 ; Bradley 1997 ; Engel 1981 ; Finkelhor 1984; Gundlach 1967 )
Social phobia or extreme shyness, (Golwyn 1993 )
Parental loss through death or divorce, (Zucker 1995)
Separation from parent during critical developmental stages. (Zucker 1995)

In some cases, same-sex attraction or activity occurs in a patient with other psychological diagnosis, such as:


major depression, (Fergusson 1999 )
suicidal ideation, (Herrell 1999),
generalized anxiety disorder,
substance abuse,
conduct disorder in adolescents,
borderline personality disorder, (Parris 1993 ; Zubenko 1987 )
schizophrenia, (Gonsiorek 1982)
pathological narcissism. (Bychowski 1954 ; Kaplan 1967 )

In a few cases, homosexual behavior appears later in life as a response to a trauma such as abortion, (Berger 1994 ; de Beauvoir 1953) or profound loneliness (Fitzgibbons 1999).

) AT-RISK, NOT PREDESTINED


While a number of studies have shown that children who have been sexually abused, children exhibiting the symptoms of GID, and boys with chronic juvenile unmasculinity are at risk for same-sex attractions in adolescence and adulthood, it is important to note that a significant percentage of these children do not become homosexually active as adults. (Green 1985 ; Bradley 1998)

For some, negative childhood experiences are overcome by later positive interactions. Some make a conscious decision to turn away from temptation. The presence and the power of God's grace, while not always measurable, cannot be discounted as a factor in helping an at-risk individual turn away from same-sex attraction. The labeling of an adolescent, or worse a child, as unchangeably "homosexual" does the individual a grave disservice. Such adolescents or children can, with appropriate, positive intervention, be given proper guidance to deal with early emotional traumas.

5) THERAPY


Those promoting the idea that sexual orientation is immutable frequently quote from a published discussion between Dr. C.C. Tripp and Dr. Lawrence Hatterer in which Dr. Tripp stated: "... there is not a single recorded instance of a change in homosexual orientation which has been validated by outside judges or testing. Kinsey wasn't able to find one. And neither Dr. Pomeroy nor I have been able to find such a patient. We would be happy to have one from Dr. Hatterer." (Tripp & Hatterer 1971) They fail to reference Dr. Hatterer response:


"I have 'cured' many homosexuals, Dr. Tripp. Dr. Pomeroy or any other researcher may examine my work because it is all documented on 10 years of tape recordings. Many of these 'cured' (I prefer to use the word 'changed') patients have married, had families and live happy lives. It is a destructive myth that 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual." It has made and will make millions more committed homosexuals. What is more, not only have I but many other reputable psychiatrists (Dr. Samuel B. Hadden, Dr. Lionel Ovesey, Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Harold Lief, Dr. Irving Bieber, and others) have reported their successful treatments of the treatable homosexual." (Tripp & Hatterer 1971)
A number of therapists have written extensively on the positive results of therapy for same-sex attraction. Tripp chose to ignore the large body of literature on treatment and surveys of therapists. Reviews of treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions shows that it is as successful as treatment for similar psychological problems: about 30% experience a freedom from symptoms and another 30% experience improvement. (Bieber 1962 ; Clippinger 1974 ; Fine 1987 ; Kaye 1967 ; MacIntosh 1994 ; Marmor 1965 ; Nicolosi 2000 ; Rogers 1976 ; Satinover 1996 ; Throckmorton ; West )

Reports from individual therapists have been equally positive. (Barnhouse 1977 ; Bergler 1962 ; Bieber 1979 ; Cappon 1960 ; Caprio 1954 ; Ellis 1956 ; Hadden 1958 ; Hadden 1967b ; Hadfield 1958 ; Hatterer 1970 ; Kronemeyer 1989 , Nicolosi 1991) This is only a representative sampling of the therapists who report successful results in the treating of individuals experiencing same-sex attractions

Man, talk about D-E-N-I-A-L.

*shrugs*

A hopeless case.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Raping strangers is not consensual intercourse. Bad example to copy jade.

Why are you so insistent on condemning one type of perceived sin when it does no harm to anyone but the perceived sinner? There are far worse things to focus your attention on where harm is done to others against their will, truly ethical sins. Mass murder, genocide, and war profiteering. Muggings, beatings, rapes, and robberies. Would you not consider these sins, those perpetrated on people without their consent, far worse than that of homosexuality? Why are you so obsesed with homosexuality? And again, what do you propose we do to stop it?

I mean really, how many threads do we need on this topic? Damn.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I assure you jade, 'tis none but you and your ilk who are seriously confused, confounded and clueless.

The so-called 'bible' has so many interpretations one must assume there is one for every bias, you have found yours.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

2) where in any of that is there *any* direct reference to homosexuality being bad?

---

You all just can't see the real world can you (the word "all" is meant to exclude some people here, and you should know who you are)
Something to entertain you while you're at it:

Humans are such easy creatures to deceive.

Knowledge is often mistaken for intelligence. This is like mistaking a cup of milk for a cow.

If you must argue, remember that it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
William Gibbs McAdoo

Blessed is he who expects nothing; for he shall not be disappointed.
Jonathan Swift

Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is.
Albert Camus

A human being: an ingenious assembly of portable plumbing.
Christopher Morley

Only on paper has humanity yet achieved glory, beauty, truth, knowledge, virtue, and abiding love.
George Bernard Shaw

The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race.
Don Marquis

The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
Joseph Conrad

The human race is governed by its imagination.
Napoleon

Human beings cling to their delicious tyrannies and to their exquisite nonsense, till death stares them in the face.
Sydney Smith

Nature does not deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Killing for peace is like fucking for chastity

Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.

The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.

Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.

Organized religion is like organized crime; it preys on peoples' weaknesses, generates huge profits for its operators, and is almost impossible to eradicate.

I am treated as evil by those who feel persecuted because they are not allowed to force me to believe as they do.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.

When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything.
G.K. Chesterson

Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.
Chapman Cohen

I do not believe in god because I do not believe in Mother Goose.
Clarence Darrow

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.
Thomas Edison

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Anatole France



ofcourse there's always more but now you should know where i stand and i don't stant alone
hope you all had a good laugh with me ... hold no grudge ... for i'll be laughing anyway

I for one am chortelling with you.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Dislike of team sports (boys)
Lack of hand/eye coordination and resultant teasing by peers (boys)
Social phobia or extreme shyness

---

Wow ... it's an absolute wonder I didn't turn out to be another Paul Lynde.

Wow! Four pages, and many many posts about a book!

"Will wonders never cease."

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If you are not aware of what a Troll is, I suggest you look it up.

---

I thought trolls were those ugly beasts in Norse mythology that turned into stone if hit by sunlight. Hmm, that makes sense. I don't know if you meant for that symbology or not, it sounds like a good enough label to me, however I am not a troll and do change. That is part of being a Christian, I change.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

So the Jews, who do not follow Christ, are not true believers, according to your
definition, right?

---

You are twisting what my definition of a true believer is. My defintion of a true believer is one who follows Christ with their heart. That context is within the Christian term of "believer" which is an abbreviated phrase for "believer in Christ Jesus." So it would follow naturally that those who do not believe in Christ Jesus are not true believers...
I do however believe the Jews who still refuse to claim Jesus as their King as believers of the One True God, however for some reason or another, they don't trust Him?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gid - look up "Trolling" - I think you may get a better definition there.

Anyway, back to the Jews.

Now, the Xians equate Jesus with God. But the Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah (because he didn't meet the criteria given to the Jews by God himself). Thus, for the Jews, Jesus is not God.

The real question being, why did God give the Jews a set of Rules for defining what a Messiah is, and then purposely break them? Maybe God likes a good joke?

But Jews do believe in God, obviously (and the same God that the Xians do).

Now, are Jews true believers in God? Yes, I believe so (practicing Jews, anyway). Are they true believers in Christ? No, they are not. They do not follow Christ with their heart at all.

So, Jews cannot be true believers, according to your definition

quote:

---

My defintion of a true believer is one who follows Christ with their heart.

---

I see no twisting of words here by me.

Web, you must know god is a trickster, he hid all those dinosaur fossil didn't he.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Web, you must know god is a trickster, he hid all those dinosaur fossil didn't he.

---

I guess he didn't want us to think outside the box.

The last thing religious leaders want you to do, is think.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

The real question being, why did God give the Jews a set of Rules for defining what a Messiah is, and then purposely break them? Maybe God likes a good joke?

---

Then again maybe it was not GOD who made the joke.

Perhaps it was simply that the JEWS chose NOT to believe?

quote:

---

Then again maybe it was not GOD who made the joke.

Perhaps it was simply that the JEWS chose NOT to believe?

---

Could you maybe explain that a bit further? I don't see how believing or not has anything to do with a set of Rules.

Meaning that they chose not to believe that they were wrong in interpreting the rules defining what a messiah was.

So In the end, they believed themselves to be correct. Which would be their fault, and not a joke.

No I am not religious.

quote:

---

Meaning that they chose not to believe that they were wrong in interpreting the rules defining what a messiah was.

---

By that same logic, the entire Old Testament is also suspect.

quote:

---

By that same logic, the entire Old Testament is also suspect.

---

I guess i too recently saw the Mel Gibson flick. It seemed that the Jews then, were more UNwilling to believe Jesus, than to believe.
As if the idea of a messiah is simply that an idea. But when presented with that exact person, they don't believe, and maybe they will never believe.

Yeah I know it's only a movie.

Zynx.

Would you please post something, for once, that makes a bit of sense?

Yes?

The Jews received their Rules on what a Messiah is (and how to determine one) from God himself (if one believes the old testament, and that those who wrote it).

Jesus did not fulfill this Rules!

Do you understand this?

Rules come from God to Jews, Jesus comes, but does not fulfill the requirements set out in the rules. Jesus is supposed to be God. Why would God lie to his Chosen people about his coming?

god chooses people o.o i thought all men were created as equals

I wonder what would happen if someone profiled or psycho analysed god.
Serial killer? Psychopath? Maybe even problems in childhood? ...

what if the jews lied about the whole messiah thing ... maybe there wasn't
even supposed to be a messiah ... one of the jews could have been drunk
one night (hey but NOOOO ... that's not humanly possible!) ... but then what
if the people who first started writing the bible lied too ... or were delusional ...
(hey NOOO! ... people can't lie! ... this is impossible!)

i don't have any proof that anyone has lied ... good fiction writers don't
necessarily lie ... they just tell stories ... and some are better than others

i know a story about jesus when he was young (12 years old) .. he got lost in
Jerusalem (after he had been playing with other children) ... (his parents couldn't
find him) ... and they returned to Nazareth without him (wtf!?) ... later found him
in the temple there ...

...what's important here is that men there were teaching him ... and not the
other way around ... ofcourse ... 12 years old and all ... what i mean is that
he was raised as the son of god and all his life he was taught by some of the
wisest men around in the area ... unlike many other children ... and men ...
and ofcourse he was eager to learn too ... he could probably sense the value
of these teachings ...

i won't finish with a conclusion ... i leave it up to you ... those who think alike with
me probably understand where i was heading ... those who don't will probably
never doubt in what they believe ... and good for you ... maybe you need that for
your personal well being and inner peace or smth...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
Zynx.

Would you please post something, for once, that makes a bit of sense?

Yes?

---

Wouldn't that be refreshing?? This is starting to make discussions with Gideon seem not so bad...

quote:

---

This is starting to make discussions with Gideon seem not so bad...

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Man, my sides ache...

Shaman, you clearly missed my acknowledgment that I know little about this subject, yet you chose to belittle me anyways.

And that's the last time I will ever admit such things, with people like you lurking about.

But that's ok, because you've been here longer than me, so every give you more leeway than I am given.

Even though I admit that I didn't know much about the issue.

But who cares if your right or wrong about my knowledge on this issue.

You say whatever you want.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-31-2005 19:16)

quote:

---

But when presented with that exact person, they don't believe, and maybe they will never believe.

---

But they weren't presented with that exact person.

quote:

---

i thought all men were created as equals

---

That is not from the Bible, it is from the Declaration of Independence (USA, 1776)

Arthurio,
I think you are thinking along the same lines as I am.
When humans first began to think and wonder about the things around them, they tried to come up with ideas about where everything came from. The more creative people came up with some stories about how creation may have come about.
The more devious people among them began to think about how they could capitalize on this and gain power over the people around them. They are the ones that became the religious leaders and preyed on the fears of the rest.

(I'm not even going to comment on that last post by Zynx!)




(Edited by briggl on 08-31-2005 16:16)

I can't even count the number of lines that post has crossed, Zynx.

The sheer ignorance and self absorption is simply astounding.

In seriousness or in jest, there is simply NO room for that kind of statement on this Forum!

None.

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-31-2005 19:01)

Is that better? Did I conform well?

I changed my earlier responses, when I came in, and you explained that.

So, I tried the honest approach, but Shaman didn't care, and it seems neither did you DL.

I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

What a joyus time to be a newbie.

It is becoming quite obvious that Zynx is about the biggest IDIOT around.

quote:

---

It is becoming quite obvious that Zynx is about the biggest IDIOT around.

---

That is a good one. Ha ha ha. It's comments like that that make me want to stay!
What jokularity!

(Edited by Zynx on 08-31-2005 20:10)

You can make light of it all you want - if it were up to me, that statement would get you banned.

What you posted there is *seriously* fucked up.

And why? It seems you are implying that your feelings were hurt over our reception of your comments?

There's no excuse for statements like you made above, whether serious, joking, sarcastic, or in any other way.

{edit
and I can assure you there was nothing in briggl's comment that was jocular or antagonistic. that statement is a very simple observation of your behavior here.



(Edited by DL-44 on 08-31-2005 21:21)

quote:

---

You can make light of it all you want

---

So I should have "made light" of shaman's post? Why? Maybe I should have used your words, when I first arrived. I believe it was "pompous, ass, idiot, brainless". "Do as I say, not as I do.", Eh DL.

quote:

---

if it were up to me, that statement would get you banned

---

Perhaps you would also like to dictate to others what NOT to say.

quote:

---

What you posted there is *seriously* fucked up.

---

If someone plays with fire, he's gonna get burned.

quote:

---

And why? It seems you are implying that your feelings were hurt over our reception of your comments?

---

So you think I wasn't? And then you say, "imply", as if I'm a liar?

quote:

---

There's no excuse for statements like you made above, whether serious, joking, sarcastic, or in any other way.

---

If someone can belittle me, then I can belittle them. Fair is fair.

He has explained his heritage in another thread, and I didn't slam him. Why? Because I felt he was being honest.
Now I come to this thread, and I am being honest, and he choses to slam me. You, him, and others might not like it, but what goes around comes around.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-31-2005 21:33)

May I please know what was posted before the edit?

Send it privately in a mail.

Offline the hate will go, and...

I, as the bringer of topic life, will now pronounce this thread dead.

Dan @ Code Town