Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE RELIGION THREAD
Posts
CashmereCat
View playlists
CloseAnd with me learning more about confidence and self-love, one thing I can never agree to is self-sacrificing love.
Even Jesus said to love another like yourself.
Like. Yourself.
Oh, I think you misunderstand. The self-sacrificial love I'm talking about is not one made out of obligation. It's the desire to give of yourself to others, and the willingness to sacrifice for the sake of benefitting others. The primary example I would give is if a child was walking across the road, about to be hit by the bus, jumping in front of that bus to save them. Of course I don't believe in giving the entirety of yourself to someone, only to have them trample all over you. That would be highly unwise. But I do believe that being willing to sacrifice some of your general comfort for another's, for example helping the poor or comforting others in need even though it feels weird to, is an essential kindness.
In essence, I believe self-sacrificial love and loving one another as yourself are not mutually incompatible. They are concepts that can be lived out concurrently, alongside one another. I only mean self-sacrificial love as in the notion that one would be willing to sacrifice some part of themselves to help one another. I believe that is the essence of all love, really. It's why a mother would die for their child.
author=Liberty
If you know of Sanitarium food company (maker of Weet-Bix) then you know of Sevvies in a secondary kind of way, as the company is owned by the church and promotes good and healthy eating. Kellog's also has/had ties to the church in the past. Really, the church has a lot to do with health, having a LOT of hospitals all over the world. In fact, Adventist Health System is the largest not-for-profit, multi-institutional healthcare system in the United States.
What you're describing are very Australasian-centric things, Liberty, lol, but I do understand.
author=Liberty
even if I swear like a sailor and don't fit the bill exactly.
It's funny, I have the belief that it's not what you say, it's what you mean by what you say. Eph 4:29 says, “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.” People use cuss words for everything under the sun, they aren't necessarily corrupt or unedifying. I usually don't swear because I want to be careful what I say, but generally I have nothing against offensive language in general. I also admire that you've taken the faith and given your own interpretation to it, though I'd expect nothing less from you, since you're incredibly bright ^_^
I still do not understand why you would need an extra term then. Making yourself a sacrifice is a very negative termology, and a very negative idea.
Getting hurt in the face of unhappiness and in the face of trouble is very natural, and happens whenever you get uncomfortable in any way - a necessity to get where we want ourselves or others to be.
I do agree with the general idea, although "it feels weird to" is something that can change as you get comfortable with weaknesses and unhappiness.
For me that is the time when you need to remind someone how strong they are and give them the little push they need to start helping themselves. And the more I practice that, the less it affects me. Other people having problems, even loved ones having problems does not affect me unless I let it.
At the end of the day, they are the ones hanging in there, the ones enduring and solving the problem.
Helping the poor is another topic, but I still try to see them just as anyone else.
Getting hurt in the face of unhappiness and in the face of trouble is very natural, and happens whenever you get uncomfortable in any way - a necessity to get where we want ourselves or others to be.
I do agree with the general idea, although "it feels weird to" is something that can change as you get comfortable with weaknesses and unhappiness.
For me that is the time when you need to remind someone how strong they are and give them the little push they need to start helping themselves. And the more I practice that, the less it affects me. Other people having problems, even loved ones having problems does not affect me unless I let it.
At the end of the day, they are the ones hanging in there, the ones enduring and solving the problem.
Helping the poor is another topic, but I still try to see them just as anyone else.
Animal sacrifice has often been a part of human religions. In Christianity it just happened to be a human, and was meant to be a final sacrifice.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
It bothers me how little of this topic is about the Holy Church of RMN
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=LockeZ
It bothers me how little of this topic is about the Holy Church of RMN
If Aremen made Himself/Herself visible to me, I'd bow down in worship.
LockeZ
It bothers me how little of this topic is about the Holy Church of RMN
Clearly you've forgotten the only true religion:
ALL HAIL THE MAGIC CONCH
author=CashmereCatauthor=pianotm
Anyhoo...
Man, whenever I hear your stories about your wife, for some reason I feel like crying. I'm sorry if this upsets you. It seems like you've been through a lot in life, and I can't help but feel your pain.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've never been to war, and while it's still possible at my age, I'm old enough I doubt I ever will be. I've never been to jail. I've never been robbed at gun or knife point (although I personally know of at least two instances in which someone was going to but thought twice when he saw how big I was.) I don't have what many would consider a tremendous case to prosecute the world. I brood on my own, blame myself, and curse my own perceived inadequacies. It's the fertilizer that nourishes fine poetry.
author=pianotmFrom what I understand and believe, is that all men have at least some degree of evil, and all deserve to be eternally punished for their bad deeds. You might have already understood this part of the belief from your Baptist background, but because God is a higher being that is completely perfect and good in every way, such a being cannot be reconciled with the same presence as evil.
I can't even begin to explain my feelings on a being with this kind of power being so petulant that it must condemn to eternal suffering even the most inoffensive creature that doesn't enslave itself to this being. Five minutes of reasoned thought is more than sufficient to show that not only would such a being be absolutely idiotic, but that such a being could only ever be worthy of our spite and resentment. It's certainly no benevolent creator, and the Bible makes clear that this god cares about faith and not acts.
The wonderful thing about beliefs are that they need only be based on principle and aren't required to follow any specific rules.
I'm not objecting to the idea of a creator god. I'm objecting to other people's ideas (yours included; nothing personal) of a creator god. We can't know the truth, but we can make a clarification.
If we assume that god is the creator and master of all things, then we must reason that god created all things. For a thing to not be of god, god must not have created it. For there to be things not of god, there must be another creator. For those who are Atheists, exchange the words "god" and "creator" for the term "natural process": they're really the same thing. Any basic interpretation is as valid as the next. Cash, do you believe that god created all things? Consider that good and evil are both of god. Good and evil are not anathema, they are lovers. One cannot exist without the other. In metaphysical studies, we accept that there is no such thing as good or evil, but merely the perception. You can approach this from any angle you like. Still, a moment of unbiased reflection clearly shows that if there is a god, and god created all things, then it follows that god created evil and that evil is of god. There can be no other conclusion.
I believe that the God I serve is not only morally good, but a host of other moral purities including righteousness, and given that trait, would it be good or righteous to let an unrighteous man go unpunished? The truth is, what defines an unrighteous man, is any man who does any wrong. We're all unrighteous, to some degree. So it's a benevolent creator who gives us a free gift to be clothed in his righteousness, to some effect.
It's proper to have a sense of right and wrong. Don't forget which category "judging others" belongs to. We mere mortals aren't actually qualified to judge right from wrong. We can only follow our own judgement on the matter. Hopefully, we'll be lucky enough to never encounter a situation in which our moral compass will be compromised. The world is not black and white.
But also, I believe that accepting salvation requires repentance, and that's to continually do your best to stop doing bad things. This isn't a means to earn salvation, but it's just called being like Christ.
Judge none. Love all. Love is the law.
Truth is not the destination: it's the road.
author=CorfaisusI agree. Self-sacrificing love is the shiznit.
The cornerstone of what I believe is true, self-sacrificing love.
Word.
author=kentona
Animal sacrifice has often been a part of human religions. In Christianity it just happened to be a human, and was meant to be a final sacrifice.
Yes, except that Christians haven't stopped performing animal sacrifice. Most Christians don't realize this, of course, because they don't understand the concept or procedures of animal sacrifice. Most Christians pray before meals. This is part of a ritual known as the Eucharist. The flesh of an animal is seared, consumed in the daily meal, and a portion is left uneaten. This is the part that is commended to god. Even in the earliest days of sacrifice, the remains were simply disposed of because they would otherwise rot. Throwing them in the trash is acceptable. Even if you clean your plate, if meat is part of the meal, there will always be a little left over, edible portions stuck to bones and fat. So you understand, while priests sacrificed goats on an altar, the simple peasants sacrificed what little they could at the table. It's a form of animal sacrifice that continues to this day.
Tyranos
1115
I personally find religion to be silly and stupid in equal portions though I don't go out of my way to antagonize people about it or convert them. There is no single, agreed-upon definition of spirituality, I know it's invalid to use in place of religious institutions. However I do believe that "God" is a word we made to explain certain feelings and concepts before we became more intelligent as a species. Which is why I don't feel it's WRONG to be religious or spiritual or whatever you wish to call it. However here are SOME of the reasons I cannot be bothered to respect religion. One primary reason is because it promotes unjust and very evil behavior. In other words it tempts humans to act and think wrongly. As any tool it's used improperly.
The bible and all holy books were written by men mostly in secret or on their own with no one else save for the book of mormon which was still penned under dubious circumstances.
God is frequently referred to as "He" or "Him". If he's omnipotent wouldn't he be "It"? Think about it with a mental snap of the fingers God would now be female or a hermaphrodite.
Most religions setup hospitals and other places to help injured and sick because they caused that injury and sickness through thousands of battles and hundreds of wars. Inquisition anyone? How about the Crusades? Even wars that weren't STARTED by religion were claimed "Just wars" by the church. I can list many of them. Austerlitz, Bannockburn, Byzantium, Fall of France, German Blitz, Siege of York, The Roses War, The Hundred Years, and the list goes on. All claimed to be just in the eyes of "God".
Even the most modern religion is not unique in any one way. Everything about Christianity is stolen/converted from other religions to help ease converts as it comes across as more familiar. Christmas is Yule and a pagan holiday, and the first thing that comes to mind.
If a deity created everything then they cannot be good or evil because there is an equal amount of suffering for all the wonders of the world. Such as bugs who have the sole purpose of burrowing into children's eyes and laying eggs that when hatched will eat those eyes and blind them.
To say that the universe works by such specific laws that it can't be chance is childish. If I win the lottery there are clear established rules as to how that is handled. It would be the same thing to say that my win was created by an almighty being and that I did not win by chance. Yes it appears like we hit the jackpot but are you aware only about 20% of earth is actually inhabitable for us and 99.99% of explored space and planets would not sustain any life whatsoever?
Explore a prayer sometime. The only findings that state prayers help with anything have all been proven fraudulent and in some cases the claimant is bold and states as much themselves. "It's useful because I say so." is not what makes a study a study.
Further explorations of prayer show that those who pray and get what they want, get what they want at the same rate as those who do not. In other words it's coincidence and it's used to support the claim prayer works. We do not hear about the other 19 people who died regardless of prayer.
When you look at the bible it constantly tells us that all we need to do is ask and it shall be given and it constantly talks about how no matter what it is we shall receive. Yet even when millions pray for cancer to disappear from earth it does not happen.
Theistic response to the aforementioned prayer is that "God must remain hidden.". Then why is there a book that talks about him constantly and mentions his offspring who also lacks any historical evidence of existence?
Billions of people saying something is true is also not a good counter to prove something is real either. If the other road doesn't work especially. As many theists say constantly "Well you not believing doesn't make him less real!" neither does billions saying he does. Billions of people saying that birds are not real does not make them real. Conversely billions saying dragons are real does not make dragons real.
Refuting evolution when it's an observable fact and trying to claim it attempts to explain the genesis of the universe and is therefore against god. The theory of evolution is the study and attempt to explain the mechanisms of evolution and evolution itself is simply there. For instance you wearing a suit when you start a job at a place in an office where others wear suits is EVOLUTION as you just adapted to fit into an environment. The stupidity behind anti evolution claims is only the tip of the iceberg though.
Marriage only being valuable if gays can't marry. I forget who but a man literally was going to annul his marriage in protest of congresses decision. He treats his marriage as a political or social tool. Not an actual relationship with his wife. This is what a spouse means to this man and what taught him this value? Religion. This same man goes on about how it will lead to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY such as rape, pedophilia, and bestiality. As if people don't have sex without marriage and marriage is somehow going to cause sexual preferences to change so drastically.
If this god that must remain hidden is omnipotent then why should he remain hidden at all? Can't your god simply do as they please and erase memories? In other words cure cancer around the world and make humanity ever forget he did it or that it existed? What about the paradox question? If god is omnipotent and can do anything then god can create a problem god can't solve or make a rock god can't move. In other words god is not omnipotent and omnipotence is a flawed idea and concept from the start. Possibly because as I stated earlier god is a word we made to explain concepts and not actually a real being of any sort.
It expects me to trust that a single person in charge of said religion is the only person who can commune with said omnipotent being and that everything this HUMAN says is absolutely true and how everyone should live their life. That anyone who speaks against it, questions it, or does not participate in it is wrong and worthless. That it is okay to sacrifice or kill said people because it's just.
The bible and all holy books were written by men mostly in secret or on their own with no one else save for the book of mormon which was still penned under dubious circumstances.
God is frequently referred to as "He" or "Him". If he's omnipotent wouldn't he be "It"? Think about it with a mental snap of the fingers God would now be female or a hermaphrodite.
Most religions setup hospitals and other places to help injured and sick because they caused that injury and sickness through thousands of battles and hundreds of wars. Inquisition anyone? How about the Crusades? Even wars that weren't STARTED by religion were claimed "Just wars" by the church. I can list many of them. Austerlitz, Bannockburn, Byzantium, Fall of France, German Blitz, Siege of York, The Roses War, The Hundred Years, and the list goes on. All claimed to be just in the eyes of "God".
Even the most modern religion is not unique in any one way. Everything about Christianity is stolen/converted from other religions to help ease converts as it comes across as more familiar. Christmas is Yule and a pagan holiday, and the first thing that comes to mind.
If a deity created everything then they cannot be good or evil because there is an equal amount of suffering for all the wonders of the world. Such as bugs who have the sole purpose of burrowing into children's eyes and laying eggs that when hatched will eat those eyes and blind them.
To say that the universe works by such specific laws that it can't be chance is childish. If I win the lottery there are clear established rules as to how that is handled. It would be the same thing to say that my win was created by an almighty being and that I did not win by chance. Yes it appears like we hit the jackpot but are you aware only about 20% of earth is actually inhabitable for us and 99.99% of explored space and planets would not sustain any life whatsoever?
Explore a prayer sometime. The only findings that state prayers help with anything have all been proven fraudulent and in some cases the claimant is bold and states as much themselves. "It's useful because I say so." is not what makes a study a study.
Further explorations of prayer show that those who pray and get what they want, get what they want at the same rate as those who do not. In other words it's coincidence and it's used to support the claim prayer works. We do not hear about the other 19 people who died regardless of prayer.
When you look at the bible it constantly tells us that all we need to do is ask and it shall be given and it constantly talks about how no matter what it is we shall receive. Yet even when millions pray for cancer to disappear from earth it does not happen.
Theistic response to the aforementioned prayer is that "God must remain hidden.". Then why is there a book that talks about him constantly and mentions his offspring who also lacks any historical evidence of existence?
Billions of people saying something is true is also not a good counter to prove something is real either. If the other road doesn't work especially. As many theists say constantly "Well you not believing doesn't make him less real!" neither does billions saying he does. Billions of people saying that birds are not real does not make them real. Conversely billions saying dragons are real does not make dragons real.
Refuting evolution when it's an observable fact and trying to claim it attempts to explain the genesis of the universe and is therefore against god. The theory of evolution is the study and attempt to explain the mechanisms of evolution and evolution itself is simply there. For instance you wearing a suit when you start a job at a place in an office where others wear suits is EVOLUTION as you just adapted to fit into an environment. The stupidity behind anti evolution claims is only the tip of the iceberg though.
Marriage only being valuable if gays can't marry. I forget who but a man literally was going to annul his marriage in protest of congresses decision. He treats his marriage as a political or social tool. Not an actual relationship with his wife. This is what a spouse means to this man and what taught him this value? Religion. This same man goes on about how it will lead to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY such as rape, pedophilia, and bestiality. As if people don't have sex without marriage and marriage is somehow going to cause sexual preferences to change so drastically.
If this god that must remain hidden is omnipotent then why should he remain hidden at all? Can't your god simply do as they please and erase memories? In other words cure cancer around the world and make humanity ever forget he did it or that it existed? What about the paradox question? If god is omnipotent and can do anything then god can create a problem god can't solve or make a rock god can't move. In other words god is not omnipotent and omnipotence is a flawed idea and concept from the start. Possibly because as I stated earlier god is a word we made to explain concepts and not actually a real being of any sort.
It expects me to trust that a single person in charge of said religion is the only person who can commune with said omnipotent being and that everything this HUMAN says is absolutely true and how everyone should live their life. That anyone who speaks against it, questions it, or does not participate in it is wrong and worthless. That it is okay to sacrifice or kill said people because it's just.
author=pianotm
Still, a moment of unbiased reflection clearly shows that if there is a god, and god created all things, then it follows that god created evil and that evil is of god. There can be no other conclusion.
This is an interesting conundrum. If there is a supreme being, who is the creator of all things, and some of these things are evil, then does it follow that this supreme being contains evil? Firstly, I would say that since a supreme being could, in fact, change logic and reason and the very laws of what make "things" "things" to apply in different ways to him than they do others, there is no necessity that the supreme being has to be evil in order to create things that might eventually turn evil. If the supreme being lies outside space and time, our limited understanding of things that come "of" something having the qualities pertaining to that thing, are very limited to our small sphere of existence. Humans have barely explored the vast sense of logic that holds the universe together, so how is it that we can reduce the entirety of "good" and "evil" and even simple inheritance of such values down to our simple human constructs? God could create evil, and still be purely good, just because he has made the moral rule that that is so.
author=pianotm
Most Christians pray before meals. This is part of a ritual known as the Eucharist. The flesh of an animal is seared, consumed in the daily meal, and a portion is left uneaten.
Actually, the Eucharist are the elements of the communion supper in Christian Churches where the bread and wine are consumed as a representation of the sacrifice of Christ. They correspond, representatively, to the body and blood of Christ. It's a callback to when Jesus and the disciples broke bread together (Mark 14:22-24). People do it at church often as a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice. It has nothing to do with animal sacrifice.
author=Tyranos
The bible and all holy books were written by men mostly in secret or on their own with no one else save for the book of mormon which was still penned under dubious circumstances.
I understand, but how else would one write a book? In front of a large audience? That would be a really tedious process. The book of Mormon is essentially said to have been found on golden plates by Joseph Smith himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon), however critics have explored whether he actually had the golden plates, whether it was Smith himself who wrote them or an associate, or whether the book was based on others such as the View of the Hebrews, the Spalding Manuscript, or the Bible.
The Bible itself was a result of writings spanning several millennia (not a single night), in which the living conditions of the writers - political, cultural, economic, and ecological - varied enormously.
author=Tyranos
Even wars that weren't STARTED by religion were claimed "Just wars" by the church. I can list many of them.
I suppose you're referencing the Catholic church's Just War Doctrine (http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine). I don't believe that it's up to mankind to justify which wars were just, if any. The Catholic church have drawn quite a few laws around the Bible that aren't justified by the words of God, but rather by the words of man. They've written their own holy texts around the Bible, claiming a lot of rules that shouldn't exist. How is it even up to man to decide which wars were just and which weren't? It's ridiculous.
author=Tyranos
Even the most modern religion is not unique in any one way. Everything about Christianity is stolen/converted from other religions to help ease converts as it comes across as more familiar. Christmas is Yule and a pagan holiday, and the first thing that comes to mind.
Christmas indeed has pagan origins, and it has become used to some extent as a promotion of commercialism. I think it's a harmless holiday that I believe does not mark the date of Jesus' birth at all, but still has become a good time to remember about it. Or just... buy presents and have fun with family, or ignore the holiday if you don't believe in it, I guess.
author=Tyranos
If a deity created everything then they cannot be good or evil because there is an equal amount of suffering for all the wonders of the world. Such as bugs who have the sole purpose of burrowing into children's eyes and laying eggs that when hatched will eat those eyes and blind them.
By saying this, you are equating evil with suffering. Sometimes suffering is not evil, because there's been an evil that preceded the suffering. In this case, the original sin of mankind has poisoned the waters, so to speak, and has caused mankind and all creation to fall, and to eat each other and to basically wage war and hate and cause suffering (see Gen 2:4-3:24, the Adam and Eve story). So since mankind has fallen, suffering exists, and it's all our fault. No-one else's.
author=Tyranos
If I win the lottery there are clear established rules as to how that is handled. It would be the same thing to say that my win was created by an almighty being and that I did not win by chance.
It is not a case of whether striking an extreme possibility is possible, it's a question of whether the combination of all the extreme possibilities that make human life possible, are a feasible probability given all the chances that mankind has to exist on a certain planet.
author=Tyranos
Further explorations of prayer show that those who pray and get what they want, get what they want at the same rate as those who do not. In other words it's coincidence and it's used to support the claim prayer works. We do not hear about the other 19 people who died regardless of prayer.
I don't think that a prayer should be something that is empirically measured. Are we sure to know that if you are using a prayer as an experiment, that it will be answered? There are multiple unseen factors at work here, and to think that a prayer works like a magic spell that has a certain percentage of coming true is ridiculous. If there is a supreme being that wills something to happen, it happens. A plea to that supreme being is just that: a plea. Who is to say that it will give any proven, empirical chance at an eventuality happening in a more likely fashion? The idea is inconsistent.
author=Tyranos
When you look at the bible it constantly tells us that all we need to do is ask and it shall be given and it constantly talks about how no matter what it is we shall receive. Yet even when millions pray for cancer to disappear from earth it does not happen.
I am assuming you are talking about the verse "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." (Matt 7:7). It is an error to interpret this as "whatever you pray for, it'll happen". The verses after give an analogy about a child asking for good things from a parent, and that the parent will not give them a dangerous/poisonous thing in return: "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?"
So what the "ask and you will receive" actually means is that you won't receive if you don't ask. And if you ask of God, then he is not going to give you something terrible in return, but he is not necessarily going to give you everything you want either. It is important that when you read the Bible, you read in context of the verses around it.
author=Tyranos
The stupidity behind anti evolution claims is only the tip of the iceberg though.
As I've stated earlier, theoretically creation and evolution can co-exist if creation happened by using evolution.
author=Tyranos
Marriage only being valuable if gays can't marry. I forget who but a man literally was going to annul his marriage in protest of congresses decision. He treats his marriage as a political or social tool. Not an actual relationship with his wife. This is what a spouse means to this man and what taught him this value? Religion. This same man goes on about how it will lead to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY such as rape, pedophilia, and bestiality.
This is not a godly man. The Bible condemns any form of sexual immorality, rape, pedophilia and bestiality included. To judge the nature of God on the basis of a pitiful man who is not representative of God's virtues at all, in fact the opposite, is erroneous. Anyone can say they are a Christian, but it does not mean that they are. If a person is truly repentant of their sin they won't get into all that.
The Bible even says that not only is committing adultery (having sex with someone outside of marriage) is bad, but looking at a person with lust for them has already committed adultery with them in their heart. Obviously, this lies for bestiality, and other forms of sin.
author=Tyranos
If god is omnipotent and can do anything then god can create a problem god can't solve or make a rock god can't move.
The idea of God creating problems he can't solve, etc., is a paradox created that is self-refuting and invalid. What you're asking is that God become self-contradictory as proof He doesn't exist. That proof is illogical from the start. Of course there are things that a being can't do, not because they don't have the power to do them, but because that would be something that violates its own nature. For an infinitely sized being (if, indeed, the supreme being can be reduced to a size) could create something greater in size than itself, that would be impossible, since there is no size greater than infinity. That doesn't mean that infinity doesn't exist, it's just that there is nothing greater because it's a concept whose nature does not allow for greater.
author=Tyranos
It expects me to trust that a single person in charge of said religion is the only person who can commune with said omnipotent being and that everything this HUMAN says is absolutely true and how everyone should live their life. That anyone who speaks against it, questions it, or does not participate in it is wrong and worthless
This is not true. In the true Christian faith, anyone can communicate directly with God and have a personal relationship with him. It is not wise to trust in a single person or man as the "voice of God", because man is fallible and does all kinds of crazy shiznit. The only reason why Jesus is different is because he was one part of the Trinity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and thus he is not fully man but came in human form.
~~~
Anyway, that took a while, and it's a bit of a text dump, to say the least. Now I'm gonna go to bed. Cheers, everyone.
I'm out. I'll waste no more of my time talking to you about this. I've wasted far more of my time than was wise to begin with. I shouldn't have even posted to begin with. I should have known that instead of thinking about the deep spiritual journey I've hinted at, you would simply marginalize it. Never again will I mention it.
I will comment on the Eucharist, since I get extremely annoyed when people are so corrupted by religion they ignore history. The Eucharist is an Ancient Greek ritual, paying tribute to the Olympian gods. It was adopted by Jews a hell of a lot longer than Christ was born. The 2nd Council of Nicea, upon compiling the Bible, had manuscripts three times the amount of what the Bible finally ended up containing. Their challenge was to make the Bible small enough to be practical and to be compiled of a largely unified view (Not even the 4 gospels that were finally included agree with each other on events, never mind the numerous Apocryphal gospels that told tales of Christ the council found controversial.). One of these gospels was rejected because Jesus rebukes his disciples for practicing the Eucharist. Then again, if twelve men and five women were eating my flesh and drinking my blood, I think I might have something to say about it, too. It stands to reason that the disciples were not devouring Christ. You can also quit throwing scriptures at me. I've been studying the Bible all of my life. Now that I practice sorcery, I am learning the Hebrew version of the Torah (Book of Law), and the Gospels. I feel reasonably confident that I know the Bible a damned sight better than you seem to have convinced yourself.
EDIT: I apologize. I'm more irritable than usual lately. What I said, I said in hopes of a reasonable back and forth discussion. What I got was a rebuttal full of so many logical fallacies a ten-year-old could pick it apart. I should have expected it, having been once just as spiritually immature, and I let irritate me much more than I should have. CashmereCat, read over what you wrote and see if you can figure out how I took it as a direct insult to my intelligence.
I will comment on the Eucharist, since I get extremely annoyed when people are so corrupted by religion they ignore history. The Eucharist is an Ancient Greek ritual, paying tribute to the Olympian gods. It was adopted by Jews a hell of a lot longer than Christ was born. The 2nd Council of Nicea, upon compiling the Bible, had manuscripts three times the amount of what the Bible finally ended up containing. Their challenge was to make the Bible small enough to be practical and to be compiled of a largely unified view (Not even the 4 gospels that were finally included agree with each other on events, never mind the numerous Apocryphal gospels that told tales of Christ the council found controversial.). One of these gospels was rejected because Jesus rebukes his disciples for practicing the Eucharist. Then again, if twelve men and five women were eating my flesh and drinking my blood, I think I might have something to say about it, too. It stands to reason that the disciples were not devouring Christ. You can also quit throwing scriptures at me. I've been studying the Bible all of my life. Now that I practice sorcery, I am learning the Hebrew version of the Torah (Book of Law), and the Gospels. I feel reasonably confident that I know the Bible a damned sight better than you seem to have convinced yourself.
EDIT: I apologize. I'm more irritable than usual lately. What I said, I said in hopes of a reasonable back and forth discussion. What I got was a rebuttal full of so many logical fallacies a ten-year-old could pick it apart. I should have expected it, having been once just as spiritually immature, and I let irritate me much more than I should have. CashmereCat, read over what you wrote and see if you can figure out how I took it as a direct insult to my intelligence.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I honestly expected an argument between an atheist and a religious person, arguing about the merits of the very concepts of God and faith. Not between two people who have different theistic beliefs.
On an aside, I will get way more defensive if you insult video games than if you insult my religion.
On an aside, I will get way more defensive if you insult video games than if you insult my religion.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=LockeZ
I honestly expected an argument between an atheist and a religious person, arguing about the merits of the very concepts of God and faith. Not between two people who have different theistic beliefs.
On an aside, I will get way more defensive if you insult video games than if you insult my religion.
RNGesus doesn't love you. That's why your party wiped.
Tyranos
1115
@ CashmereCat. In other words I respect people who are spiritual but I can't be bothered to respect a person who is "religious". One way of using the word is in fact "He trains religiously.". It means to follow a specific set of rules to the letter. This can be destructive if it's not allowed to be open to interpretation by each follower and also able to be altered as needed. To that end while I know the word "Spiritual" has no real definition I feel that people who wish to BELIEVE or otherwise have FAITH in something are far more respectable when they realize that it's not there to explain what we know but rather offer an opinion on something we do NOT know. For instance we know how humans work. We know how planets form and have seen supernovas now in action. Religion now is obsolete in explaining these things because they do not need explanation they need understanding, which is achieved through study.
Something we do not know is what happens after death to a persons personality. We have no evidence for what happens from the dead persons perspective and until we find a way to gain that perspective then yes, explaining that with religion does work as it gets us asking questions and searching for answers. However explaining something like how lasers work is unacceptable as we KNOW how lasers work. Faith is belief, knowing is knowledge. I feel a priest or holy person would have both of those in the right amounts and not wander around screaming "I know God is real!". After all there was once a time when I would have been called a scholar not a priest. I would also have been expected to teach students that wanted to learn biology and languages. Monks and priests were men who were expected to learn and teach the truth. In fact the grandfathers of evolution, Darwin and Mendel, were both men of the cloth! This is what I feel characterizes spirituality. It's meant to get you asking questions and your brain is meant to be used in every way you can to figure it out. To me that is the pinnacle priest. Not the shitty people we see in modern times. To me they don't seem to understand the principles of Christianity or spirituality in the least. Though because they identify themselves as Christians they are indeed Christians. Nazi's were Christians. We might not like that idea but too bad. We don't get to say something isn't real or didn't happen because we don't like it. The fact is they identify as much and they even go so far as to attempt their best to emulate those values. Falling short is no cop out either. That's like saying "He's not an archer because he hasn't shot anyone yet." when he marched to war with a bow. Hitting the target does not make him an archer, being an archer makes him an archer.
You mean like most writers do today? They have publishers and editors who see what they write and in the case of a book that is not being sold I would think it be little effort to actually show off what you write. Why hide while writing it if the goal is to spread it everywhere?
This is no excuse to hide while writing or editing a book that is supposed to be spread everywhere.
EVERY religion has claimed certain wars are just. For instance Christianity was one of the many Crusades instigators not the catholic church, though they did instigate a few other crusades there was not only ONE crusade to the middle east. Mormons justify war in the book of mormon in the battle between the lamanites and nephites. WWII was started by Christians and Hitler claimed it was as just war, as a Christian.
Something we do not know is what happens after death to a persons personality. We have no evidence for what happens from the dead persons perspective and until we find a way to gain that perspective then yes, explaining that with religion does work as it gets us asking questions and searching for answers. However explaining something like how lasers work is unacceptable as we KNOW how lasers work. Faith is belief, knowing is knowledge. I feel a priest or holy person would have both of those in the right amounts and not wander around screaming "I know God is real!". After all there was once a time when I would have been called a scholar not a priest. I would also have been expected to teach students that wanted to learn biology and languages. Monks and priests were men who were expected to learn and teach the truth. In fact the grandfathers of evolution, Darwin and Mendel, were both men of the cloth! This is what I feel characterizes spirituality. It's meant to get you asking questions and your brain is meant to be used in every way you can to figure it out. To me that is the pinnacle priest. Not the shitty people we see in modern times. To me they don't seem to understand the principles of Christianity or spirituality in the least. Though because they identify themselves as Christians they are indeed Christians. Nazi's were Christians. We might not like that idea but too bad. We don't get to say something isn't real or didn't happen because we don't like it. The fact is they identify as much and they even go so far as to attempt their best to emulate those values. Falling short is no cop out either. That's like saying "He's not an archer because he hasn't shot anyone yet." when he marched to war with a bow. Hitting the target does not make him an archer, being an archer makes him an archer.
author=CashmereCatauthor=Tyranos
The bible and all holy books were written by men mostly in secret or on their own with no one else save for the book of mormon which was still penned under dubious circumstances.
I understand, but how else would one write a book? In front of a large audience? That would be a really tedious process. The book of Mormon is essentially said to have been found on golden plates by Joseph Smith himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon), however critics have explored whether he actually had the golden plates, whether it was Smith himself who wrote them or an associate, or whether the book was based on others such as the View of the Hebrews, the Spalding Manuscript, or the Bible.
You mean like most writers do today? They have publishers and editors who see what they write and in the case of a book that is not being sold I would think it be little effort to actually show off what you write. Why hide while writing it if the goal is to spread it everywhere?
author=CashmereCat
The Bible itself was a result of writings spanning several millennia (not a single night), in which the living conditions of the writers - political, cultural, economic, and ecological - varied enormously.
This is no excuse to hide while writing or editing a book that is supposed to be spread everywhere.
author=CashmereCatauthor=TyranosI suppose you're referencing the Catholic church's Just War Doctrine (http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine). I don't believe that it's up to mankind to justify which wars were just, if any. The Catholic church have drawn quite a few laws around the Bible that aren't justified by the words of God, but rather by the words of man. They've written their own holy texts around the Bible, claiming a lot of rules that shouldn't exist. How is it even up to man to decide which wars were just and which weren't? It's ridiculous.
Even wars that weren't STARTED by religion were claimed "Just wars" by the church. I can list many of them.
EVERY religion has claimed certain wars are just. For instance Christianity was one of the many Crusades instigators not the catholic church, though they did instigate a few other crusades there was not only ONE crusade to the middle east. Mormons justify war in the book of mormon in the battle between the lamanites and nephites. WWII was started by Christians and Hitler claimed it was as just war, as a Christian.
author=CashmereCatauthor=TyranosYes and Christians would have you believe otherwise since what you said validates another religion.
Even the most modern religion is not unique in any one way. Everything about Christianity is stolen/converted from other religions to help ease converts as it comes across as more familiar. Christmas is Yule and a pagan holiday, and the first thing that comes to mind.
Christmas indeed has pagan origins, and it has become used to some extent as a promotion of commercialism. I think it's a harmless holiday that I believe does not mark the date of Jesus' birth at all, but still has become a good time to remember about it. Or just... buy presents and have fun with family, or ignore the holiday if you don't believe in it, I guess.author=Tyranos
If a deity created everything then they cannot be good or evil because there is an equal amount of suffering for all the wonders of the world. Such as bugs who have the sole purpose of burrowing into children's eyes and laying eggs that when hatched will eat those eyes and blind them.author=CashmereCat
By saying this, you are equating evil with suffering. Sometimes suffering is not evil, because there's been an evil that preceded the suffering. In this case, the original sin of mankind has poisoned the waters, so to speak, and has caused mankind and all creation to fall, and to eat each other and to basically wage war and hate and cause suffering (see Gen 2:4-3:24, the Adam and Eve story). So since mankind has fallen, suffering exists, and it's all our fault. No-one else's.
The problem with that is that you have zero EVIDENCE that mankind poisoned the waters at all. You are making a claim and presenting no proof of that claim. Even if that day arrives I still do believe that any God who would make a bug that preys on children who have no concept of a God or religion in general is evil. Especially if that child is thousands of years removed from the asshole who ruined everything. In fact don't ever prove that claim it only shows God to be an even WORSE monster.author=CashmereCatauthor=Tyranos
If I win the lottery there are clear established rules as to how that is handled. It would be the same thing to say that my win was created by an almighty being and that I did not win by chance.author=CashmereCat
It is not a case of whether striking an extreme possibility is possible, it's a question of whether the combination of all the extreme possibilities that make human life possible, are a feasible probability given all the chances that mankind has to exist on a certain planet.
They are about as probable as me winning every lottery. Yes it CAN happen, and if it did you'd be one of many who would scream "God did it it's a miracle!" however it simply isn't true that because it's not likely that it had to be by design. For instance it was highly likely that I would not be a virgin by the time I got out of high school. Guess what shocked bishops of my mothers church? I was a virgin. Hardly a miracle.author=Tyranos
Further explorations of prayer show that those who pray and get what they want, get what they want at the same rate as those who do not. In other words it's coincidence and it's used to support the claim prayer works. We do not hear about the other 19 people who died regardless of prayer.author=CashmereCat
I don't think that a prayer should be something that is empirically measured. Are we sure to know that if you are using a prayer as an experiment, that it will be answered? There are multiple unseen factors at work here, and to think that a prayer works like a magic spell that has a certain percentage of coming true is ridiculous. If there is a supreme being that wills something to happen, it happens. A plea to that supreme being is just that: a plea. Who is to say that it will give any proven, empirical chance at an eventuality happening in a more likely fashion? The idea is inconsistent.
It's not inconsistent at all otherwise we would not have developed any medicine at all. After all if prayer worked why bother treating any disease? If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says: For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
In Matthew 21:21: I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be: "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.
We see the same thing over and over again...
In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says: Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
In James 5:15-16 the Bible says: And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
In Mark 9:23: All things are possible to him who believes.
In Luke 1:37: For with God nothing will be impossible.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.
And keep in mind that this is Jesus talking here. These are not the words of human beings. These are not the words of "inspired" human beings. These are supposedly the words of God himself, incarnated in a human body. Jesus is supposed to be a perfect, sinless being. And yet, it is obvious that Jesus is lying. What Jesus says is clearly incorrect.
Jesus is supposed to be God. God is supposed to be perfect. When Jesus speaks, he should speak the truth. Yet when we look at what Jesus says about prayer, he is clearly lying.
If you would like additional proof, gather a million faithful believers together into a giant prayer circle. Have them all pray together in Jesus' name that God cures every case of cancer on the planet tomorrow. Pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Now, we certainly have two or more people gathered together, and they have asked in Jesus' name, and we have not one but a million faithful believers who, by definition, have faith and believe. We have fulfilled every one of Jesus' requirements.
Will Jesus answer the prayer now? Of course not. Your prayer will go unanswered, in direct defiance to Jesus' promises in the Bible. In fact, if you pray for anything that is impossible, your prayer will always go unanswered.
Perfect statements about how prayer works are made IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. So yes it is very much a magic spell with a chance of going off. It very much is something with limited and defined wills and powers at work and it NEVER WORKS. Sorry but your bible offers itself up on a platter on this one.author=Tyranos
When you look at the bible it constantly tells us that all we need to do is ask and it shall be given and it constantly talks about how no matter what it is we shall receive. Yet even when millions pray for cancer to disappear from earth it does not happen.author=CashmereCat
I am assuming you are talking about the verse "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." (Matt 7:7). It is an error to interpret this as "whatever you pray for, it'll happen". The verses after give an analogy about a child asking for good things from a parent, and that the parent will not give them a dangerous/poisonous thing in return: "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?"
So what the "ask and you will receive" actually means is that you won't receive if you don't ask. And if you ask of God, then he is not going to give you something terrible in return, but he is not necessarily going to give you everything you want either. It is important that when you read the Bible, you read in context of the verses around it.
I am not interpreting it at all you are. I am going by the bible given definition while you are citing your personal thoughts on clearly defined and written verses that are not open to interpretation. See the above response.author=CashmereCatauthor=TyranosWrong. Creation, or the genesis of an object or life is not at the very least explained by evolution one bit. See the part where I talk about you putting a suit on to go to a job at an office? That's evolution. You adapted to fit into your environment. It doesn't end there though does it? You use air conditioning or fans to cool your house down no? You use a stove to cook food since eating it raw makes you sick no? This is ALL EVOLUTION. It's you changing and adapting to better survive. Creation and evolution are two separate things entirely. One is unknown while the other is very much known and observable though it's mechanisms are still being studied.
The stupidity behind anti evolution claims is only the tip of the iceberg though.
As I've stated earlier, theoretically creation and evolution can co-exist if creation happened by using evolution.author=CashmereCatauthor=TyranosThis is not a godly man. The Bible condemns any form of sexual immorality, rape, pedophilia and bestiality included. To judge the nature of God on the basis of a pitiful man who is not representative of God's virtues at all, in fact the opposite, is erroneous. Anyone can say they are a Christian, but it does not mean that they are. If a person is truly repentant of their sin they won't get into all that.
Marriage only being valuable if gays can't marry. I forget who but a man literally was going to annul his marriage in protest of congresses decision. He treats his marriage as a political or social tool. Not an actual relationship with his wife. This is what a spouse means to this man and what taught him this value? Religion. This same man goes on about how it will lead to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY such as rape, pedophilia, and bestiality.
The Bible even says that not only is committing adultery (having sex with someone outside of marriage) is bad, but looking at a person with lust for them has already committed adultery with them in their heart. Obviously, this lies for bestiality, and other forms of sin.
I thought marriage was sacred to you people? Now stop with the no true Scotsman fallacy. He is equating gay marriage to ruining the nation and making us all partake of criminal activity because Christianity itself teaches us to do this in many parts of the bible. It's stance on homosexuality is indicative of a twelve year old mentality. That is my judgement. It is utter bullshit to claim this man is not a Christian when he does EXACTLY as Christianity and other religions tell him and fights against homosexual relations and marriage. What is erroneous is to claim you have the right way of life and force it on others and treat them like less for ANY REASON INCLUDING RELIGION.author=Tyranos
If god is omnipotent and can do anything then god can create a problem god can't solve or make a rock god can't move.author=CashmereCat
The idea of God creating problems he can't solve, etc., is a paradox created that is self-refuting and invalid. What you're asking is that God become self-contradictory as proof He doesn't exist. That proof is illogical from the start. Of course there are things that a being can't do, not because they don't have the power to do them, but because that would be something that violates its own nature. For an infinitely sized being (if, indeed, the supreme being can be reduced to a size) could create something greater in size than itself, that would be impossible, since there is no size greater than infinity. That doesn't mean that infinity doesn't exist, it's just that there is nothing greater because it's a concept whose nature does not allow for greater.
Yes it is illogical. Because it's built on an illogical paradox known as omnipotence. So if your God exists then this concept which is so flawed a mortal man can detect it in seconds cannot apply to that God. So you would have to admit God is NOT omnipotent.author=Tyranos
It expects me to trust that a single person in charge of said religion is the only person who can commune with said omnipotent being and that everything this HUMAN says is absolutely true and how everyone should live their life. That anyone who speaks against it, questions it, or does not participate in it is wrong and worthlessauthor=CashmereCat
This is not true. In the true Christian faith, anyone can communicate directly with God and have a personal relationship with him. It is not wise to trust in a single person or man as the "voice of God", because man is fallible and does all kinds of crazy shiznit. The only reason why Jesus is different is because he was one part of the Trinity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and thus he is not fully man but came in human form.
No true Scotsman again. There is no "true Christian faith" you admit yourself it was derived from many other religions meaning you are watered down pagans at best.
I loved the fallacies and the cherry picking. However you'll find that I have very much "read the context surrounding the passages" as it were while you did not. Says a lot about your faith that you result to such measures. I guess she was right... I saw through your lies as quickly as you spit them out. Humans might be good at lying but I guess they can't lie to holy warriors eh?
author=Tyranos
In other words I respect people who are spiritual but I can't be bothered to respect a person who is "religious".
Apart from the fact that you are applying a very narrow definition of "religious" here, the tone and attitude behind your post is unnecessarily aggressive. I'm not saying you don't have some good points, and I agree that many common concepts in known religions have their own contrdictions built into them. And yes, this applies to some of Cashmere's previously expressed ideas as well.
But please don't forget that this is supposed to be a constructive discussion, and the goal here is not to beat down someone else and their beliefs. No matter how much you disagree with someone's opinions, you will very much not appear like the paragon of truth you present yourself as if you can't even be bothered to respect your fellow human beings and treat them with some sensitivity.
Also:
author=Tyranos
Nazi's were Christians.
No, that's incorrect. The Nazi ideology was actually opposed to any sort of religion, and while they temporarily tolerated the existence of Christianity, their ultimate goal was to eventually get rid of the church's influence and remove faith from the heads of the people.
It's always easy to associate religion and religious institutions with atrocities committed in the past (and present), and in many cases it's even valid to do so. But don't forget that this is only one side of the story.
P.S.:
I had wanted to react to this particular point earlier already:
author=CashmereCat
I believe that the God I serve is not only morally good, but a host of other moral purities including righteousness, and given that trait, would it be good or righteous to let an unrighteous man go unpunished?
Yes! What you describe is the exact definition of "mercy". And correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know that is one of the key concepts of Christianity, right? And if God would really condemn his own creations just based on the fact that it were somehow in our nature to do wrong, I have a hard time seeing what would distinguish God from a tyrant. And I'm not so sure in how far that can be described as morally pure.
author=pianotm
I should have known that instead of thinking about the deep spiritual journey I've hinted at, you would simply marginalize it. Never again will I mention it...
What I said, I said in hopes of a reasonable back and forth discussion. What I got was a rebuttal full of so many logical fallacies a ten-year-old could pick it apart.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I in no way intended to diminish any part of your spiritual journey or your offering of it, I was just making discussion about religion and my views that I thought would be useful. I apologize if I came off as rude or uninformed or logically false. That's part of the reason why I engaged in this discussion, is that I certainly don't know a lot, but I can learn a lot by discussion on the topic. I know that you are very knowledgeable in such areas, and I appreciate the discussion you bring forth. Know that I have google on tap when I'm answering these questions, but that I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, because I think it's valuable to build off of other people's facts they've gleaned, as I'm sure you understand.
author=pianotm
You can also quit throwing scriptures at me. I've been studying the Bible all of my life. Now that I practice sorcery, I am learning the Hebrew version of the Torah (Book of Law), and the Gospels. I feel reasonably confident that I know the Bible a damned sight better than you seem to have convinced yourself.
It is not my intention to throw Scriptures at you to prove my dominance. I was just using Scriptural evidence as backup to say "I believe the Christian faith represents this because it is said in their holy text". It is by no means to say, "I know the Bible better than you and that's why I'm quoting it". I find it admirable that you're learning the Hebrew version of the Torah, that must be very difficult. I seem to know the Bible quite well, but I admit, there are portions that I've memorized that fade from my memory very often.
author=pianotm
The Eucharist is an Ancient Greek ritual, paying tribute to the Olympian gods. It was adopted by Jews a hell of a lot longer than Christ was born.
That's interesting. Do you have any references for this? I'm legitimately interested to learn. When I googled "eucharist ancient Greek ritual" I got a few links to sites. I was interested in the Wikipedia article about the Origin of the Eucharist, with communal meals where the participants symbolically ate the flesh and drank the blood of their god, in particular the Dionysian cult and its mysteries. I also found such an article on the site "Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth". But the thing I find with such claims, is that in many religions, they have poured libations and made sacrifices and done all sorts of rituals, and it seems to me that the coincidence of a religion eating and drinking the symbolic flesh and blood of their god is not an altogether uncommon occurrence. It's like a little kid coming up with the concept of a unicorn (a horse with a horn on the top of its head) without influence of others, that unless there's a set of very uncannily common characteristics between rituals, I don't think it's fair to say it's the same thing. However, I would like to research more about what seems to be the pagan origins of Christianity, and further investigate whether such connections are dense and convincing, or sparse and fabricated. I'm not that well-versed on the issue.
author=pianotm
One of these gospels was rejected because Jesus rebukes his disciples for practicing the Eucharist.
Which gospel is this? I googled "Jesus rebukes Eucharist" and "Jesus rebukes communion gospel" and got nothing relevant.
author=pianotm
Their challenge was to make the Bible small enough to be practical and to be compiled of a largely unified view
I am aware of the process of development of the Christian biblical canon. There are various canons, personally I believe in the Protestant canon that excludes the Apocrypha, but I'll be honest in that I haven't researched as to why. I guess what I believe is that the authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles.
author=Tyranos
This is what I feel characterizes spirituality. It's meant to get you asking questions and your brain is meant to be used in every way you can to figure it out. To me that is the pinnacle priest.
Yes. I believe you should approach belief with an open mind, concerning a unified view of science and spirituality and all other aspects of life. I will be honest though, I know very little about science, only what I was taught in high school and what I've read in the slightly limited selection of books and articles I've read, and I really should brush up on all that.
author=Tyranos
Though because they identify themselves as Christians they are indeed Christians. The fact is they identify as much and they even go so far as to attempt their best to emulate those values. Falling short is no cop out either. That's like saying "He's not an archer because he hasn't shot anyone yet." when he marched to war with a bow. Hitting the target does not make him an archer, being an archer makes him an archer.
After Nazi Germany had surrendered in World War II, the U.S. Office of Strategic Services published a report on the Nazi Master Plan of the Persecution of the Christian Churches. Historians and theologians generally agree about the Nazi policy towards religion, that the objective was to remove explicitly Jewish content from the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Pauline Epistles), transforming it into 'Positive Christianity'. (From Wikipedia page.)
I would say that if they sought to persecute Christian churches and remove a large amount of words from the holy text, they definitely don't represent what a true Christian is. In fact, some people who identify as being Christians are not true at all. I think you know better than any, that one person or even a group of people does not necessarily represent the trueness of a particular belief.
What you are asking, I believe is, whether you believe someone is "saved" according to the Christian belief, and that is a question that only God can answer, but I believe it comes down to the issues of belief and repentance. If you truly believe, then repentance and turning away from sin will be the natural result. If you're still committing atrocities and sinning all over the place, I find it extremely implausible or even impossible that a person can truly believe in the message of Jesus Christ and sin as rampantly as those who adhered to the Nazi belief did.
author=Tyranos
You mean like most writers do today? They have publishers and editors who see what they write and in the case of a book that is not being sold I would think it be little effort to actually show off what you write. Why hide while writing it if the goal is to spread it everywhere?
I am not sure that many authors of the Bible wrote with express knowledge that what they were going to be written was going to be included in the canonical Bible. I researched authorship of the Bible but I found it hard to find articles about whether people were actually watching while they were writing their various books. Could you provide some references? In general, though, I found that editors are believed by scholars to be involved in some aspects of the composition, and obviously people are required in the compilation of the books.
author=Tyranos
For instance Christianity was one of the many Crusades instigators not the catholic church, though they did instigate a few other crusades there was not only ONE crusade to the middle east.
It is true that a Christian may have said, "this is a just war", but this doesn't mean that God said it. In my belief, history is riddled with people screwing around and saying things that God didn't say. It's the nature of man's fallibility - people screw around, do dumb crap and people believe them and hail them as kings. It's just discerning which is the right truth amongst all the terrible things that people have done, and all the undue prejudices against entire belief systems that they've created.
author=Tyranos
The problem with that is that you have zero EVIDENCE that mankind poisoned the waters at all. You are making a claim and presenting no proof of that claim. Even if that day arrives I still do believe that any God who would make a bug that preys on children who have no concept of a God or religion in general is evil. Especially if that child is thousands of years removed from the asshole who ruined everything. In fact don't ever prove that claim it only shows God to be an even WORSE monster.
In the Christian text, which is believed to be inspired by God, it states the origin of mankind, the story of Adam and Eve, the fall of mankind that you can choose to reject if you wish, but it's part of the Christian holy text. It describes the Fall of Mankind, where original sin came into play as the origin of mankind's fallen nature and original corruption, causing sin to enter the world. Of course, you're free to believe/disbelieve this, as you are to believe/disbelieve anything, but the idea is that an originally perfect creation was tainted by evil by the doing of mankind. To say that God is a monster for this only comes from our limited understanding of evil, and that all suffering is bad, and that death is negative, and that the lack of suffering of all mankind is the centre of all meaning. Even still, we also confuse temporary suffering with long-term suffering. If there indeed exists a state of heaven or hell, which I believe there does, then any short-term suffering or pleasure we receive on Earth pales in comparison to the suffering or pleasure we will experience after our bodies perish. The extremities of human joyfulness and human suffering, are exceeded in Heaven and Hell respectively, and this world is just a pale portrait of what is to come. That's what I believe, anyway.
Tyranos
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens...
...if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
That is not true, simply because it is possible that a mountain could be moved, but God does not will it. There's a difference between something being possible and something actually happening. As I explained before, when Jesus said "everyone who asks receives", you read the context around it as well, because that is a very vague statement when taken by itself, and can lead itself to very wild and even silly possibilities. The verses surrounding it indicate that this section is regarding "God will not give bad things to those who ask for good things", and that you won't receive if you don't ask. Taking it literally from the English text, when the original was written in Greek, can suffer from major misunderstandings, and even then, context is important when interpreting.
author=Tyranos
Matthew 21:21 "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
If you read the context in which this is said, you will realize that the disciples have just asked him, "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" and then Jesus replies with the answer that "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." The emphasis was not "whatever you ask for, I'll give it to you, no matter what it is", the emphasis was in "whatever you may happen to ask, it will be possible for you if you believe, and I will give the go-ahead", because the disciples were inquiring as to the quickness and the readiness of the tree to wither, because they had clearly not seen a miracle happen so convincingly before. If you make precise deductions about general statements made within the context of a general situation, you can almost make anyone say anything that is untrue.
author=Tyranos
John 14:12-14 "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
The statement directly previous to this says "so that the Son may bring glory to the Father". In the context of the conversation -- which is extremely important because language, especially conversational language, only makes sense in context -- is that everything you ask for that is in the will of God to grant, will be done. Incising very small statements and pulling them out of context like this can bring any meaning. You need to pull them out in the context of the general topic that is being spoken.
author=Tyranos
In James 5:15-16 the Bible says: And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Again, we are making assumptions from the English translation of the verse that it means "all prayers offered in faith will always make sick people well" when this is clearly not what is meant by the passage. It is simply stating that "prayers offered in faith make sick people well" but it doesn't state in which frequency, it merely says that prayers have the possibility of making sick people well again.
author=Tyranos
Mark 9:23: All things are possible to him who believes.
Luke 1:37: For with God nothing will be impossible.
Of course all things are possible, since God is an omnipotent being, but that doesn't mean that all things happen, obviously. This would mean that someone could pray for bad things, and that they would happen, even though the Bible repeatedly reiterates that this is not the case. Obviously what has been said is not meaning that everything that any Christian believes might happen, will happen. That would be ludicrous, and no such claim is being made. In the context of what's being said, and without nitpicking about various words and statements extracted on their own, and interpreted from the English translation of a Greek text nonetheless, we can't conclude that Jesus was making any statement that "all prayers will be answered", and it would seem to go against the very nature of everything else Jesus teaches and has taught. Throughout the Bible, literally almost in any book, there is the context of people praying to God but not receiving what they have prayed for. This is a universal truth that Jesus just expected these people to understand.
author=Tyranos
No true Scotsman again. There is no "true Christian faith" you admit yourself it was derived from many other religions meaning you are watered down pagans at best.
The reason I am using the "no true Scotsman" is that, in the Christian faith, there are saved people and there are unsaved people. If you truly believe in Christ, you receive regeneration which means you are repentant of all sin. And I struggle to believe someone who has that much sin rampant in their life has truly believed and turned away from all their evil ways.
But yes, even despite all that I have got to say you have interesting arguments to bring up, it's just that I find a lot of them are doing the very thing you're accusing me of, and that is cherry picking. But I still respect you as a person.
author=NeverSilentauthor=CashmereCatYes! What you describe is the exact definition of "mercy". And correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know that is one of the key concepts of Christianity, right? And if God would really condemn his own creations just based on the fact that it were somehow in our nature to do wrong, I have a hard time seeing what would distinguish God from a tyrant. And I'm not so sure in how far that can be described as morally pure.
I believe that the God I serve is not only morally good, but a host of other moral purities including righteousness, and given that trait, would it be good or righteous to let an unrighteous man go unpunished?
I believe that the definition of mercy is not giving people the punishment that they deserve. But I do admit that God's mercy is not eternal, but it is still perfect. God will not ignore everyone's sins forever, but he gives a period of mercy where people can make the free decision to accept his love, but I do not believe that perfect mercy necessarily means acquitting someone of all their deeds, forever forgetting every atrocity, never punishing any evil. If you're defining a tyrant as "a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly", it would be our measure that God is oppressive of unjust? He gives most men enough time to figure out for themselves what the world is all about (I'd say more than enough time), gives the opportunity for a free belief to a world that has done so much wrong, and if anything it's not oppressive, it's completely merciful. If his mercy didn't exist, us as a human species -- which a supreme being should have all right to exterminate and have done from the planet forever -- is given chance after chance after chance to get our act together, having failure upon failure and yet still we are given chances. That's what I believe to be the definition of God's mercy, in that it's not eternal, but it doesn't necessarily need to be eternal to be perfect, and if anything justice is also a perfect attribute of God, and that justice will come to fruition eventually.
~~~
Despite all this, just remember I love you guys and I apologize if I have been a bit short or incisive with my comments. This is a very enlightening discussion. If you would like to stop arguing with me, that's fine, just request so. I apologize, pianotm, if I didn't honour your request by arguing points back. I presume that you are still wanting to be replied to, but if not, then just explicitly say so and I am willing to stop.
Cheers and thank you to all.
LightningLord2
230
I honestly don't like how the monotheistic beliefs have hampered religious freedom - in asian culture, there's loads and loads of gods and even among the Roman Empire, you were free to worship whoever you want as long as you offer tribute to the Roman pantheon. It's at that time where those guys started to stamp out other religions as they do not accept the existence of other gods. I'm glad that they no longer have supreme authority about belief in most countries, but I don't want to go any further than that.
As for myself, I may not value god worship that high, but the existence of divinity is undeniable for me - old Egyptians looked at the sun and saw a god in it, so in that perception, god is very much real because it's very clear that the sun exists. Twitch Plays Pokémon allowed you to see the process of a new faith in real time - there have been numerous events of concidences involving the Helix Fossil, which eventually prompted the chat to view it as a diety. This religion meaningfully impacted how the game was played, so both this faith and it's patron diety are, in my opinion, real.
As for myself, I may not value god worship that high, but the existence of divinity is undeniable for me - old Egyptians looked at the sun and saw a god in it, so in that perception, god is very much real because it's very clear that the sun exists. Twitch Plays Pokémon allowed you to see the process of a new faith in real time - there have been numerous events of concidences involving the Helix Fossil, which eventually prompted the chat to view it as a diety. This religion meaningfully impacted how the game was played, so both this faith and it's patron diety are, in my opinion, real.
Volrath
2760
Debating religion is tough because it's easy for discussions to slip into people saying "your feelings are wrong" back and forth to one another. But I do think it's valuable to share different perspectives and experiences as a lot of people here have done. In the long run, I think that stuff is more worthwhile than arguing about it.
My mother was raised Catholic and my Dad didn't have any religion until his mother was suddenly taken in by the Jehovah's Witnesses (you know, the ones that come to your door and annoy you). Dad was old enough to be like "Yeah, no thanks" but had no issues with mom's Catholicism even if he never bought it himself. Still, I was baptized, went to CCD (we used to call it Central City Dump) and even had a First Communion. Then my little sister died when I was five years old. The local priest came to our house, ostensibly to comfort us, and wound up not-so-subtly urging my mother to make a donation to the church. That was the end of our little adventure with Catholicism. No more CCD, no more church on Sundays, and I can't say I ever really missed it.
In my first year of college at NYU, I saw a plane crash into the second World Trade Center building. Shortly after, the Rev. Jerry Falwell blamed it on gays, feminists, athiests, secularists, basically everyone except the assholes who flew the plane into the tower. What a douchebag. I wasn't in any hurry to reevaluate my religious stance, or lack thereof.
Then I met my future wife, who was a pretty faithful churchgoer. At first, I ignored it but then I got a better idea of what her church was like. They never talked about people going to Hell for their sins, all they ever wanted to do was raise money to help poor people. When my wife was going through her ordination process to become a reverend, she had to discuss her faith in detail with a panel of other clergy. She told them she didn't believe in Hell and felt that everyone would go on to the next world together. They told her that was "unrealistic." Really? More unrealistic than a talking snake? I remember that pissed me off a lot. Still, she was ordained and has been for quite a few years now. She's even married some gay couples, including a pair from North Carolina who wanted to be married shortly before one of them died from a terminal illness (and no, it wasn't AIDS). She would later use that story in a sermon, telling the congregation about the couple without revealing that it was two men. Once everyone was all teary and emotional, she dropped the bomb. Very interesting way to get people to think differently about the issue.
There were a few times where our differences made things a little tricky. In the wedding ceremony for instance, I didn't want to personally mention God in any of my vows, because to me God had nothing to do with it. The pastor could say whatever he wanted, but I wasn't going to be something I'm not. Similar situation with the baptism of our sons. Typically, parents promise to raise their children within the faith but I wasn't about to make a promise I couldn't keep. If they adopt those beliefs of their own free will, that's that, but it's not my decision to make. In both of those circumstances, we worked things out and tailored the events to make everyone happy.
I eventually came to be more charitable towards religion in general. I realized that even though the American media puts the spotlight on jerks who want to use their faith as a weapon against others, for a lot of other people it simply served as inspiration to do good in the world. The days of using religion to explain the origin of the Earth are over, made irrelevant by science. However, it's power as a motivating force for people is still alive and well.
It all sounds so harmonious and yet the world still has such issues with religious conflicts. I tend to think it's because so many people refuse to accept an obvious truth: that the standards and rules of any religion only hold sway over those who choose to follow it. Something like the Bible has no tangible authority except to those who have chosen to impart it with that authority. Everyone has the freedom to believe what they want in the privacy of their own homes and their own minds. But if you think that gives you the right to dictate the actions and choices of others, you're in for some serious disappointment.
Gay marriage, for instance. No church will ever be forced to marry a gay couple if the clergy there feels uncomfortable with the idea, regardless of what some hyperbolic bigots may tell you on TV. They will always have the right to say "Sorry, we don't do that here, find another church." And there will be another church available somewhere that will do it. The government recognizing same-sex marriage only applies to the bureaucratic elements, i.e. record-keeping, taxes, etc. It is not making a statement on the religious validity of the marriage one way or the other. Frankly, as a married hetero guy, I was getting a little sick of hearing that the "foundation" of my own marriage was in danger from this. Seriously, what does that even mean? It's not like I was home with my wife and all of a sudden our house is shaking. "Oh no! The foundation of our marriage is in trouble!"
Not even the Christians can all agree on this issue...expecting EVERYONE to avoid gay marriage is quite a stretch, don't you think?
Another example is the idea of drawing the prophet Mohammed. It's fine if Muslims want to avoid it for whatever reason. But come on, you can't expect the entire world never to draw something, that's just ridiculous. Right now, I can draw a stick figure, make an arrow pointing to it and write the word "Mohammed." According to some people, I have just committed a major taboo. I'm sorry, but that rule only applies to Muslims who have chosen to follow it. We have to let go of this idea that we can expect the entire world to change in order to satisfy these little preferences with no legal ground to stand on.
I think when we talk about banning something or making something illegal, the question we should keep in mind is "does it make people suffer?" So, with that in mind...
-Murder? Yes.
-Gay Marriage? No. Being grossed out does not constitute harm.
-Rape? Yes.
-Drawing Mohammed? No.
I've found that hasn't steered me wrong.
If anyone actually read that whole thing, thanks!
My mother was raised Catholic and my Dad didn't have any religion until his mother was suddenly taken in by the Jehovah's Witnesses (you know, the ones that come to your door and annoy you). Dad was old enough to be like "Yeah, no thanks" but had no issues with mom's Catholicism even if he never bought it himself. Still, I was baptized, went to CCD (we used to call it Central City Dump) and even had a First Communion. Then my little sister died when I was five years old. The local priest came to our house, ostensibly to comfort us, and wound up not-so-subtly urging my mother to make a donation to the church. That was the end of our little adventure with Catholicism. No more CCD, no more church on Sundays, and I can't say I ever really missed it.
In my first year of college at NYU, I saw a plane crash into the second World Trade Center building. Shortly after, the Rev. Jerry Falwell blamed it on gays, feminists, athiests, secularists, basically everyone except the assholes who flew the plane into the tower. What a douchebag. I wasn't in any hurry to reevaluate my religious stance, or lack thereof.
Then I met my future wife, who was a pretty faithful churchgoer. At first, I ignored it but then I got a better idea of what her church was like. They never talked about people going to Hell for their sins, all they ever wanted to do was raise money to help poor people. When my wife was going through her ordination process to become a reverend, she had to discuss her faith in detail with a panel of other clergy. She told them she didn't believe in Hell and felt that everyone would go on to the next world together. They told her that was "unrealistic." Really? More unrealistic than a talking snake? I remember that pissed me off a lot. Still, she was ordained and has been for quite a few years now. She's even married some gay couples, including a pair from North Carolina who wanted to be married shortly before one of them died from a terminal illness (and no, it wasn't AIDS). She would later use that story in a sermon, telling the congregation about the couple without revealing that it was two men. Once everyone was all teary and emotional, she dropped the bomb. Very interesting way to get people to think differently about the issue.
There were a few times where our differences made things a little tricky. In the wedding ceremony for instance, I didn't want to personally mention God in any of my vows, because to me God had nothing to do with it. The pastor could say whatever he wanted, but I wasn't going to be something I'm not. Similar situation with the baptism of our sons. Typically, parents promise to raise their children within the faith but I wasn't about to make a promise I couldn't keep. If they adopt those beliefs of their own free will, that's that, but it's not my decision to make. In both of those circumstances, we worked things out and tailored the events to make everyone happy.
I eventually came to be more charitable towards religion in general. I realized that even though the American media puts the spotlight on jerks who want to use their faith as a weapon against others, for a lot of other people it simply served as inspiration to do good in the world. The days of using religion to explain the origin of the Earth are over, made irrelevant by science. However, it's power as a motivating force for people is still alive and well.
It all sounds so harmonious and yet the world still has such issues with religious conflicts. I tend to think it's because so many people refuse to accept an obvious truth: that the standards and rules of any religion only hold sway over those who choose to follow it. Something like the Bible has no tangible authority except to those who have chosen to impart it with that authority. Everyone has the freedom to believe what they want in the privacy of their own homes and their own minds. But if you think that gives you the right to dictate the actions and choices of others, you're in for some serious disappointment.
Gay marriage, for instance. No church will ever be forced to marry a gay couple if the clergy there feels uncomfortable with the idea, regardless of what some hyperbolic bigots may tell you on TV. They will always have the right to say "Sorry, we don't do that here, find another church." And there will be another church available somewhere that will do it. The government recognizing same-sex marriage only applies to the bureaucratic elements, i.e. record-keeping, taxes, etc. It is not making a statement on the religious validity of the marriage one way or the other. Frankly, as a married hetero guy, I was getting a little sick of hearing that the "foundation" of my own marriage was in danger from this. Seriously, what does that even mean? It's not like I was home with my wife and all of a sudden our house is shaking. "Oh no! The foundation of our marriage is in trouble!"
Not even the Christians can all agree on this issue...expecting EVERYONE to avoid gay marriage is quite a stretch, don't you think?
Another example is the idea of drawing the prophet Mohammed. It's fine if Muslims want to avoid it for whatever reason. But come on, you can't expect the entire world never to draw something, that's just ridiculous. Right now, I can draw a stick figure, make an arrow pointing to it and write the word "Mohammed." According to some people, I have just committed a major taboo. I'm sorry, but that rule only applies to Muslims who have chosen to follow it. We have to let go of this idea that we can expect the entire world to change in order to satisfy these little preferences with no legal ground to stand on.
I think when we talk about banning something or making something illegal, the question we should keep in mind is "does it make people suffer?" So, with that in mind...
-Murder? Yes.
-Gay Marriage? No. Being grossed out does not constitute harm.
-Rape? Yes.
-Drawing Mohammed? No.
I've found that hasn't steered me wrong.
If anyone actually read that whole thing, thanks!
I ain't a scholar of religions or anything but afaik the reason behind not being able to depict Mohammad or other prophets is to prevent idoltry towards them. He's just a prophet for Yahweh / God / Allah and people shouldn't be worshiping him, only YGA. Also it isn't all Muslims, just Sunni Muslims. The wikipedia article has a brief on it if you're interested in it, mainly the background section (which I used to double check and expand on what I remember from a world history course I took years ago).
I know it is a tangent on your point but I just wanted to try and expand on that one bit.
I know it is a tangent on your point but I just wanted to try and expand on that one bit.
@CashmereCat, holy wall of text, Batman!
To start, I was wrong on a specific point. I was thinking of the wrong gospel. I have a tendency to do things from memory. The gospel in question was not rejected because Jesus rebukes the Eucharist (though Jesus does indeed rebuke the Eucharist). It's rejected because it shows Jesus arranging for Judas to betray him, and Judas' resistence to the idea. The Gospel of Judas (not to be confused with the fictional fabrication by Jeffrey Archer and Prof. Francis J. Moloney) is also confirmed to be written in the same time frame as the other gospels (between the 2nd to 4th century, and it shows to be among the oldest), which makes it difficult to dismiss by religious scholars. One thing that the Gospel of Judas unequivically shows is the fractured state of Christianity during the days of the Roman Empire. Judas reads clearly like a protest of ancient Roman Christianity. Throughout the text, Jesus is bitter and frustrated with the behavior of his disciples and it seems that the future of Christianity is a bleak one full of infighting and intolerance, in which the only hope for salvation lay in his martyrdom. Judas is a scathing review of the infighting and lack of unity that pervaded Christianity. There was no way it could be included in the Bible since it would have undermined the whole point. It's not certain who wrote it, but from tone and grammar, it may be the same author as the Acts of Peter (The Acts that appear in the Bible. The Apocryphal Acts are the Acts of John).
Christianity actually has a good, logical reason for excluding the Apocrypha. The books of the Apocrypha tend to contravene the books of the Bible. They list laws and values that, while they aren't inherently wrong, aren't necessarily in line with the accepted Biblical scripture. For example, in the Book of Mary Magdala, purported to be written by the same author as the Book of Peter, the opening of the book shows Simon Peter as being clearly resentful of Mary for being the first to see Jesus reborn. Levi comes to Mary's defense. Elaine Pagels suggests that this resentment among fellow disciples may have been hinted at in the four primary Gospels, but here, there could be no question, and it set the entire tone for the first two chapters, which would have been a clear reason for exclusion from the Bible. If that's not bad enough, when Jesus reveals himself to all of them and confirms to them that Mary was the first to see him, at her request, he explains what he witnessed after his crucifixion and describes the hierarchy of the spirits and angels of heaven, while in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it goes into such detail, it leaves no room for religious interpretation. Unfortunalely, though this description covers ten parchments, only two have been rescued from time so we only get to see a few passages of Jesus' conversation with Mary. As a whole, a little less than half the book is considered unrecoverable.
Perhaps no better reason for Apocryphal exlusion from Christianity exists than that of the Book of Jubilees. One of the oldest books of the Apocrypha, this book dates back well before the foundation of Christianity. It's a Rabbinical explanation of the Book of Genesis. In basic practice, Adam and Eve was the first man and woman. This is the Christian view (it's also incomplete: Eve wasn't Adam's first wife,which isn't entirely irrelevent to this discussion. You see, even if a book was approved for the Bible, if any part of it was still found controversial, it was subject to editing.). We all know the arguments: Adam and Eve are the first man and woman. Cain kills Abel, gets himself banished and goes out and finds a city. Clearly, there's either a glaring omission between point A and point B or Adam and Eve can't be the first man and woman. Well, Jubilees tidies this all up. You see, it's okay that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman because they lived for a little less than a thousand years, and so did their children. They had enough children, and their children had enough children that they could build that city that Cain found. If you're wondering who these brothers and sisters married to have these children, don't worry; Jubilees explains that, too. With each other! Take a quick glance at the Jewish laws regarding incest! Case closed! Adam and Eve was not the first man and woman! (Meanwhile, Jubilees gets chucked and the Rabbis hope nobody else has read it.) Meanwhile, modern Pagans and Gnostic Christians have another explanation: that we've misinterpreted the whole thing and that Adam and Eve don't represent the first man and woman, but merely the first CIVILIZED man and woman. This interpretation actually has in text support. Adam and Eve are born innocent and without care, representing early humankind, followed by the first sin and their expulsion from Paradise, representing man becoming advanced and losing his innocence. Of course, this is all just a creation story, and for anyone to take it literally is foolish.
As for sources, you've found some okay references, but encyclopedias are never reliable. I have stacks of printed material (fat lot of good that will do anyone else, but I really didn't complie them for other people), but I'm trying to think of all of the historical references I use. There is an history professor that teaches down in university in...I think it's Brazil...that I talk to regularly named Carl Anderson. One of my best sources, Jorge Ranero died of an heart attack a few years back. It was upsetting, but I can't say I was surprised; he was awfully temperamental. Then of course, there's one of my closest friends, Karen Han. She's co-written a book called "Arthur the God". It's funny. All of these people are recognized historical experts and Carl's the only professional historian. Jorge was a lawyer in Puerto Rico and Karen's an optometrist in Singapore. But you know what, I do think Jorge once said something about teaching medieval history.
Anyway, if you're interested in quick reference, I can certainly do a few quick online runs for you, but in my experience, you don't really learn anything from that kind of piecemeal reading. You collect all of these facts with no context or corrollation. If you're really interested in learning the history behind the various religions, I recommend A) searching author instead of specific subject--I've already mentioned Elaine Pagels, author of "The Gnostic Gospels" (I actually think it's from her work on the Gospel of Judas that I first learned about the history of the Eucharist, but I literally read that 6 years ago. I may not have forgotten, but it takes time to put old info together...I should of bought that book instead of just checking it out at the library.); may I also recommend James M. Robinson, the Nag Hammadi's general editor and the world's leading authority on early Christianity and the New Testament. B) Make friends in places of higher learning. Having a professor (or four) on your favorite subject to talk to is definitely a great way to learn. C) Read. Put sci-fi, mystery, and romance on the side and dedicate the bulk of your reading time to learning. What's better: reading a book about history by an historian, or reading a book by someone who was actually there? Start reading some of the ancient texts found on Project Gutenburg and sacred-texts (of course, there are a number of documents on magic, so be warned).
To start, I was wrong on a specific point. I was thinking of the wrong gospel. I have a tendency to do things from memory. The gospel in question was not rejected because Jesus rebukes the Eucharist (though Jesus does indeed rebuke the Eucharist). It's rejected because it shows Jesus arranging for Judas to betray him, and Judas' resistence to the idea. The Gospel of Judas (not to be confused with the fictional fabrication by Jeffrey Archer and Prof. Francis J. Moloney) is also confirmed to be written in the same time frame as the other gospels (between the 2nd to 4th century, and it shows to be among the oldest), which makes it difficult to dismiss by religious scholars. One thing that the Gospel of Judas unequivically shows is the fractured state of Christianity during the days of the Roman Empire. Judas reads clearly like a protest of ancient Roman Christianity. Throughout the text, Jesus is bitter and frustrated with the behavior of his disciples and it seems that the future of Christianity is a bleak one full of infighting and intolerance, in which the only hope for salvation lay in his martyrdom. Judas is a scathing review of the infighting and lack of unity that pervaded Christianity. There was no way it could be included in the Bible since it would have undermined the whole point. It's not certain who wrote it, but from tone and grammar, it may be the same author as the Acts of Peter (The Acts that appear in the Bible. The Apocryphal Acts are the Acts of John).
Christianity actually has a good, logical reason for excluding the Apocrypha. The books of the Apocrypha tend to contravene the books of the Bible. They list laws and values that, while they aren't inherently wrong, aren't necessarily in line with the accepted Biblical scripture. For example, in the Book of Mary Magdala, purported to be written by the same author as the Book of Peter, the opening of the book shows Simon Peter as being clearly resentful of Mary for being the first to see Jesus reborn. Levi comes to Mary's defense. Elaine Pagels suggests that this resentment among fellow disciples may have been hinted at in the four primary Gospels, but here, there could be no question, and it set the entire tone for the first two chapters, which would have been a clear reason for exclusion from the Bible. If that's not bad enough, when Jesus reveals himself to all of them and confirms to them that Mary was the first to see him, at her request, he explains what he witnessed after his crucifixion and describes the hierarchy of the spirits and angels of heaven, while in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it goes into such detail, it leaves no room for religious interpretation. Unfortunalely, though this description covers ten parchments, only two have been rescued from time so we only get to see a few passages of Jesus' conversation with Mary. As a whole, a little less than half the book is considered unrecoverable.
Perhaps no better reason for Apocryphal exlusion from Christianity exists than that of the Book of Jubilees. One of the oldest books of the Apocrypha, this book dates back well before the foundation of Christianity. It's a Rabbinical explanation of the Book of Genesis. In basic practice, Adam and Eve was the first man and woman. This is the Christian view (it's also incomplete: Eve wasn't Adam's first wife,which isn't entirely irrelevent to this discussion. You see, even if a book was approved for the Bible, if any part of it was still found controversial, it was subject to editing.). We all know the arguments: Adam and Eve are the first man and woman. Cain kills Abel, gets himself banished and goes out and finds a city. Clearly, there's either a glaring omission between point A and point B or Adam and Eve can't be the first man and woman. Well, Jubilees tidies this all up. You see, it's okay that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman because they lived for a little less than a thousand years, and so did their children. They had enough children, and their children had enough children that they could build that city that Cain found. If you're wondering who these brothers and sisters married to have these children, don't worry; Jubilees explains that, too. With each other! Take a quick glance at the Jewish laws regarding incest! Case closed! Adam and Eve was not the first man and woman! (Meanwhile, Jubilees gets chucked and the Rabbis hope nobody else has read it.) Meanwhile, modern Pagans and Gnostic Christians have another explanation: that we've misinterpreted the whole thing and that Adam and Eve don't represent the first man and woman, but merely the first CIVILIZED man and woman. This interpretation actually has in text support. Adam and Eve are born innocent and without care, representing early humankind, followed by the first sin and their expulsion from Paradise, representing man becoming advanced and losing his innocence. Of course, this is all just a creation story, and for anyone to take it literally is foolish.
As for sources, you've found some okay references, but encyclopedias are never reliable. I have stacks of printed material (fat lot of good that will do anyone else, but I really didn't complie them for other people), but I'm trying to think of all of the historical references I use. There is an history professor that teaches down in university in...I think it's Brazil...that I talk to regularly named Carl Anderson. One of my best sources, Jorge Ranero died of an heart attack a few years back. It was upsetting, but I can't say I was surprised; he was awfully temperamental. Then of course, there's one of my closest friends, Karen Han. She's co-written a book called "Arthur the God". It's funny. All of these people are recognized historical experts and Carl's the only professional historian. Jorge was a lawyer in Puerto Rico and Karen's an optometrist in Singapore. But you know what, I do think Jorge once said something about teaching medieval history.
Anyway, if you're interested in quick reference, I can certainly do a few quick online runs for you, but in my experience, you don't really learn anything from that kind of piecemeal reading. You collect all of these facts with no context or corrollation. If you're really interested in learning the history behind the various religions, I recommend A) searching author instead of specific subject--I've already mentioned Elaine Pagels, author of "The Gnostic Gospels" (I actually think it's from her work on the Gospel of Judas that I first learned about the history of the Eucharist, but I literally read that 6 years ago. I may not have forgotten, but it takes time to put old info together...I should of bought that book instead of just checking it out at the library.); may I also recommend James M. Robinson, the Nag Hammadi's general editor and the world's leading authority on early Christianity and the New Testament. B) Make friends in places of higher learning. Having a professor (or four) on your favorite subject to talk to is definitely a great way to learn. C) Read. Put sci-fi, mystery, and romance on the side and dedicate the bulk of your reading time to learning. What's better: reading a book about history by an historian, or reading a book by someone who was actually there? Start reading some of the ancient texts found on Project Gutenburg and sacred-texts (of course, there are a number of documents on magic, so be warned).
