100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If God were really standing right in front of you... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: I'm calling you a Moron as you bought into their BS and are obviously still supporting their main beliefs. But I don't buy into any of it. I don't believe that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh. I don't believe that Jesus "paid" for anyone's salvation. And I don't believe that Jesus has the power to "save" anyone. I don't even believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or rose from the dead, or any of that. It's the Christians who keep preaching that sort of thing, not me. You need to keep better track of who's buying into what.  Yes , by your actions, you do buy into it in a weird sort of way. I tell you the claims that you make are not Christian, or that some of them aren't even in the Bible. You call me absurd or uneducated and insist that they are... I ask for proof... You start quoting scripture to "supposedly" address my challenges, all the while stating that I don't know anything about Christianity or what it's based on. I don't know, I'm convinced that whether or not you believe the claims, you are surporting them by proselytizing them and by insisting that's how a "Christian" believes and that the Bible "demands" these things... So, while you denounce the teachings, you give support for the belief that the message is correct. I am challenging the support for that belief. Your view is NOT the only view of Christianity, but with you it seems to be all or nothing. "If you deny this, then you're delusional" or "If you deny that, you're not a Christian" or "If you can't provide a differnet view then I'm right". As a Christian, I'm allowed and expected to reject pagan rituals and concepts. As for my view, I've always stated that one must learn the truth for themselves. I also believe one's religion should not be put on "display". But you did ask, so here's a brief description of my view of Christianty. If it wasn't for this whole Jesus thing, most people would think I was Jewish... I know that you recognise the pagan influence on the Moronic church. So with this certainty, I put forth my original challenge which you denied on grounds of "semantics". However you wish to define paganism, worshipers of Earth and nature, or as worshipers of any god other than the Abrahamic God, once a "Christian" worships any other god besides "the One True God", they can no longer be considered Christian. So yes, I believe you bought into it, hook line and sinker. Proof of this fact will be you denying the truth about Christianity's history and a continued arguement for support of those Moronic beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: So yes, I believe you bought into it, hook line and sinker. Proof of this fact will be you denying the truth about Christianity's history and a continued arguement for support of those Moronic beliefs. We were just talking about "Designer Christianity" in another thread. I fully realize that this is indeed what Christianity has evolved into over the years. Designer Christianity is the wave of the future, in fact, it's actually the wave of today. Designer Christianity was made possible by "Protestantism" and it continues to evolve to this very day. Protestantism is a form of "Designer Christianity" from the word go. I still personally believe that even "Designer Christianity" can only go so far before it breaks. You speak about me being in deinal of Christianity, but I personally feel that many "Designer Christians" are actually the people who are in denial. You suggest that many of the things I claim about the religion simply aren't in the book. But they are! I know this to be a fact, because back when I wanted to teach Christianity I was confronted with the fact that I could not "deny" many things that are indeed claimed within the Biblical Text. For example, take John 3:16 and 3:18. I realize that I have already used these verses as examples before, but the fact is that they are indeed making claims that cannot be denied. John.3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Here we have an author of the New Testament demanding that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God that was "Given" to the world in a way that whosoever believe this is true should not perish by have everlasting life. So you can hardly be a "Christian" and deny the fact that the "Christian Doctrine" doesn't make this claim. If you want to deny it, you need to actually deny the doctrine itself. Which is indeed what I personally do. But I don't deny that the authors of this book made these claims. That would be foolish of me, it's right there in print. A similar thing goes with John 3:18 Jonh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. I can renounce John as having the authority to make this claim, but I can't every well deny the fact that the Bible makes this claim since John is one of the authors of the Bible. And of course, there are many other similar claims made all throughout the Bible. Also, I can't deny that the Bible claims that God himself personally spoke out to confirm these things, because that too is in the Bible. Matt.3:14 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. I have no choice but to acknowledge that this was written into the Bible. It would be foolish of me to try to suggest that the Bible doesn't claim to speak for God. The authors of the Bible were constantly claiming to speak for God in just about ever book of the Bible. But what I can do is offer that the men who made these claims were most likely either totally delusional, or passing along extremely unsubstantiate rumors, or outright lies. I personally don't believe that a voice from heaven spoke out saying "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." I mean that would need to be "God the Father" speaking directly to a crowd of people. Are you in denial that the Bible actually makes these claims?  I mean, there they are in boldfaced print. You can go look them up yourself if you like. These claims are indeed made by the authors of the Bible (as well as many more!) I just picked these out at random. To deny what the authors of the Bible are attempting to claim is ludcioius. I realized that back when I was trying to become a preacher. I can't teach what those authors claim and keep a straight face. Their claims are absurd, IMHO. I've studied this for year, and it's my conclusion that the most likely scenario is that Jesus was a pantheist. Whether he was thinking in terms of Jewish pantheism (as Slowhand suggests), or whether he was thinking in terms of Buddhism, which is certainly a philosophy and religion that would have been available to Jesus in those days because it was already quite well-established by that time. When I read the Biblical stories about Jesus it appears to me that he was attempting to bring people away from the teachings of the Old Testament, and into the light of the teachings of Buddha and pantheism. Which Jesus himself as a pantheistically-minded Jew may have fully embraced. That's a reasonable scenario, IMHO. It gives respect to Jesus as a very wise and well-intentioned spiritual teacher. Most of the "claims" that even you suggest are 'absurd', were made by the authors who wrote about Jesus, and not by Jesus himself. But to try to suggest that these claims aren't even in the Bible at all is denial. They most certainly are in the Bible. If I thought for one second that they weren't in the Bible I would have become a preacher myself. But that's not the case. If you want to preach the Bible, then you better be prepared to preach that Jesus is the sacrifical lamb of God who was "given" by God for the purpose of offering salvation and eternal life for men. And that there is no other way to achieve this gift. Because that's what the authors of the Bible are attempting to claim. Here we go again: Jonh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John is saying outright that if you don't believe in the name of the "only begotten Son of God", then you're condemned already. To pretend that this isn't in the Bible would be ludicous. And don't forget that you must also believe: Matt.3:14 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Why must you believe this? Well, if you're going to question the truth of the words of Matthew then why not also question the truth of the words of John? In short, you really need to believe all of the Bible or none of it. And let's not forget that the whole premise of the New Testament is entirely based on a belief in the Old Testament. I already gave up on the Old Testamnet long ago. It's even far more asburd, IMHO. And those stories also claim to speak for God many times over. To suggest that the Bible doesn't claim to speak for God is truly an act of denial. In fact, if you truly don't believe that it speaks for God, then why bother giving it so much clout, or any more clout that the views of any other inspiried authors. If you view the Bible as nothing more than the writings of inspired men, then surely you can also recognize that Buddha was also an inspired man, etc. All of a sudden, God is everywhere, and the very idea that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God becomes utterly absurd. You may as well become a Jew then because clearly you aren't prepared to believe that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God sent to pay for the salvation of men. You may as well become a pantheistic Jew and embrace Eastern Mysticism too. Why even bother clinging to Christianity if you're going to deny the claims that are made in the New Testament? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 08/18/10 03:20 PM
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: So yes, I believe you bought into it, hook line and sinker. Proof of this fact will be you denying the truth about Christianity's history and a continued arguement for support of those Moronic beliefs. [snipped*] Must you always prove me right while denying it at the same time? Do you realise you posted pretty much the same stuff you posted before? The one point I specifically said I would NOT challenge...  You ARE supporting those beliefs, period. That little bit of fluff which I did not challenge, can still be traced to paganism. Yes, I know it's in the Bible, and yes I renounce that as a pagan concept introduced much later. And that still does not address my direct challenges... The ones where I even told you their source, those are the ones that are NOT in the Bible... But forget about all of those claims for a second and just answer one question please. "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: The one point I specifically said I would NOT challenge... Are you kidding? That's the only point you ever challenged. You ARE supporting those beliefs, period. Of course I'm not. Acknowledging that the biblical doctrine does indeed make these claims is not the same as supporting the claims themselves. I'm saying that the doctrine itself is nothing more than false representation of history. It's just a false claim to speak for God when it's crystal clear that no supreme divine being could possibly be as utterly stupid as the author of the Bible claim. When I say that I disagree with the "Christians" I'm talking about the actual authors of the New Testament. They are the only true "Christians". They are the ones who made these claims. Everyone else who 'calls' themselves a "Christian" are simply using that term to mean that they either agree with, or believe in the writings of, the original "Christians" (i.e. the authors who wrote the New Testament). So any comments I have about "Christians" is actually aimed at the authors of the New Testament. You can call yourself a "Christian" until the cows come home. That doesn't mean diddly squat to me. If you disagree with the things that the authors of the New Testament wrote, then it's utterly absurd for you to even claim to be a "Christian". This is where Protestantism has taken the label, "Christianity" and basically made it utterly useless, because it now simply means, "Anyone who has an opinion can call that Christianity". And based on that philosophy even my views would qualify as being valid "Protestant" views. Clearly you just aren't capable of comprehending the depth from whence I'm coming from. Like we both agreed, I may as well be talking to my cat. But, for whatever it's worth, you're not alone. There are many people who call themselves "Christians" and yet disagree with what the Bible actually has to say. That's nothing new, and like I say, Protestantism is the sect that opened the gates to those kinds of absurd religious views. Christianity (and it's myriad of Protestant distortions) has caused much anguish in the name of Jesus. It just pits man against man in endless religious arguments, even Christians arguing with Christians. It's ridiculous. They would have been better off as a religion to just stick with a single "Pope" and remain Catholic. But instead they wanted to turn Jesus into a democracy because they didn't like the dictatorship that the Bible actually demands Jesus must ultimately stand for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: The one point I specifically said I would NOT challenge... Are you kidding? That's the only point you ever challenged. You ARE supporting those beliefs, period. Of course I'm not. Acknowledging that the biblical doctrine does indeed make these claims is not the same as supporting the claims themselves. I'm saying that the doctrine itself is nothing more than false representation of history. It's just a false claim to speak for God when it's crystal clear that no supreme divine being could possibly be as utterly stupid as the author of the Bible claim. When I say that I disagree with the "Christians" I'm talking about the actual authors of the New Testament. They are the only true "Christians". They are the ones who made these claims. Everyone else who 'calls' themselves a "Christian" are simply using that term to mean that they either agree with, or believe in the writings of, the original "Christians" (i.e. the authors who wrote the New Testament). So any comments I have about "Christians" is actually aimed at the authors of the New Testament. You can call yourself a "Christian" until the cows come home. That doesn't mean diddly squat to me. If you disagree with the things that the authors of the New Testament wrote, then it's utterly absurd for you to even claim to be a "Christian". This is where Protestantism has taken the label, "Christianity" and basically made it utterly useless, because it now simply means, "Anyone who has an opinion can call that Christianity". And based on that philosophy even my views would qualify as being valid "Protestant" views. Clearly you just aren't capable of comprehending the depth from whence I'm coming from. Like we both agreed, I may as well be talking to my cat. But, for whatever it's worth, you're not alone. There are many people who call themselves "Christians" and yet disagree with what the Bible actually has to say. That's nothing new, and like I say, Protestantism is the sect that opened the gates to those kinds of absurd religious views. Christianity (and it's myriad of Protestant distortions) has caused much anguish in the name of Jesus. It just pits man against man in endless religious arguments, even Christians arguing with Christians. It's ridiculous. They would have been better off as a religion to just stick with a single "Pope" and remain Catholic. But instead they wanted to turn Jesus into a democracy because they didn't like the dictatorship that the Bible actually demands Jesus must ultimately stand for. "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: The one point I specifically said I would NOT challenge... Are you kidding? That's the only point you ever challenged. uh-huh, you surely must be blind... from http://mingle2.com/topic/show/277032?page=34 "One verse? And of course it was something I never challenged. That was when you made the claim of "only begotten son", "virgin birth" and "sacrificial lamb of God", right? All 3 are pagan concepts, but only "only begotten son" is in the Bible, so of course I knew not to challenge that one." "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" I never have denied it. All I ever did was question your meaning of the term "pagan". There is no difference between the biblical mythology and any all other mythologies basically. Therefore, the very term "pagan" as you use it would be utterly meaningless. The very term, has been defined by "Christian followers" to mean "anti-christian views and sentiments".  So in that sense it's an absurd term. All the Bible amounts to are 'pagan stories' that have been collected together into a single cannon under the false pretense that they are all referring to some individual jealous godhead. The very story of Jesus as being a demigod half-breed born of a virgin mortal woman who was made pregnant by a God is an extremely common theme in many Mediterranean mythologies that you would probably refer to as "Pagan". In that sense the entire Bible and "Church" was not only influenced by "paganism" but is actually nothing more than a FORM of paganism that simply grew to the point of demanding that only its mythology should be considered to be "True". The idea that there is anything "special" about the Bible is probably where you are losing sight of reality. The Bible is just another "pagan" mythology. Except you would deny that based on the fact that the "Christians" define "Paganism" to only refer to religions they don't care to believe in.  Do you see the absurdity of this yet? If "paganism" simply means, "Any religion that doesn't believe in the same God I do", then all religions are "pagan" religions from the point of view of anyone who doesn't believe in them. It's meaningless to define "Pagan" religions to be anything that's non-Christian, or non-Abrahamic. That's just religious bigotry at it's utmost. Christianity and the entire Biblical stories were indeed influenced by many different mythologies and social folklore. Let there be no doubt about that, because ultimately that's all any religion amounts to. And the biblical folklore isn't any different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" I never have denied it. All I ever did was question your meaning of the term "pagan". Obviously it's the same definition that you use although of course you denied it at first, but you can't deny it now. Abra wrote: (in another thread) But then again, this is what religions have always done. Christianity itself has embraced and incorporated many pagan beliefs in an attempt to make it appear more palatable to the pagans. With all of the semantic games you played, you ended up using the term "pagan" in the exact same context as me? And that leaves the fact that you can't refute my challenges with evidence a moot point. Once a person practices and believes as a pagan, they are a pagan. The fact is, a Christian cannot, (by your definiton in the above context), be a pagan. This means that all of your anti-Christian views have been in reality, anti-pagan views. What have you to say about that one?  So you are welcome to continue to believe that the Bible is the same exact writings the authors intended. You are welcome to believe in the fantasy crap that isn't actually in there too. Or you can take notice of you own words and realise the Bible has been corrupted post-completion by pagans for the conversion of pagans.  Take off the blinders and embrace the truth, there is much more to Christianity than your current awareness allows you to see. Here's my condensed bullet points of Christianity. 1. Thank God for everything... 2. Seek knowledge... 3. Stop being so damn selfish, drop your ego... 4. Love everyone... 5. Stop worrying about how you "appear" to others, both appearance and actions... 6. Help others whenever you can... 7. Worry less about others' and more about your own faults... 8. Everybody's worthy of eternal life... The funny thing is, after a person accomplishes #3, the rest should come naturaly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Wed 08/18/10 10:55 PM
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" I never have denied it. All I ever did was question your meaning of the term "pagan". Obviously it's the same definition that you use although of course you denied it at first, but you can't deny it now. Abra wrote: (in another thread) But then again, this is what religions have always done. Christianity itself has embraced and incorporated many pagan beliefs in an attempt to make it appear more palatable to the pagans. With all of the semantic games you played, you ended up using the term "pagan" in the exact same context as me? And that leaves the fact that you can't refute my challenges with evidence a moot point. Once a person practices and believes as a pagan, they are a pagan. The fact is, a Christian cannot, (by your definiton in the above context), be a pagan. This means that all of your anti-Christian views have been in reality, anti-pagan views. What have you to say about that one? I must confess that I have never spoken with anyone on the Internet in my life who has been as impossible to communicate with than you. I simply conceded that if we use the term "Pagan" as you define it then the term is utterly meaningless because Christianity is paganism by that definition. It's a meaningless bigoted definition. So you are welcome to continue to believe that the Bible is the same exact writings the authors intended. You are welcome to believe in the fantasy crap that isn't actually in there too. Or you can take notice of you own words and realise the Bible has been corrupted post-completion by pagans for the conversion of pagans. Take off the blinders and embrace the truth, there is much more to Christianity than your current awareness allows you to see. Here's my condensed bullet points of Christianity. 1. Thank God for everything... 2. Seek knowledge... 3. Stop being so damn selfish, drop your ego... 4. Love everyone... 5. Stop worrying about how you "appear" to others, both appearance and actions... 6. Help others whenever you can... 7. Worry less about others' and more about your own faults... 8. Everybody's worthy of eternal life... The funny thing is, after a person accomplishes #3, the rest should come naturaly. I don't see where these ideas you offer have much to do with Christianity. 1. Thank God for everything... That would automatically be true of any religion that believes there is a supreme creator. 2. Seek knowledge... No, this is not Christianity because Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible. I could quote man verses in this regard but I see no reason to bother quoting them to you since you always deny the obvious anyway. But even Jesus renounced the "Wise" men. 3. Stop being so damn selfish, drop your ego... That's Buddhism, not Christianity. Christianity is the most arrogant and egocentric religion around. Being based on a jealous egotistical God it just encourages people to take on that same persona. 4. Love everyone... But Christians hate heathen and sinners no matter how much they pretend otherwise. This is especially TRUE if you accept the fact that the authors of the Bible are the TRUE Christians. They are constantly damning sinners and heathens in the name of God. To follow and worship those authors is to support their hatred and bigotry. Jesus himself may have preached love, but Christianity as a whole couldn't care less what Jesus taught, they just use him as an excuse to support their bigotry and hatred of others in his name. 5. Stop worrying about how you "appear" to others, both appearance and actions... Buddhism again, not Christianity at all. 6. Help others whenever you can... Buddhism again. Christians are extremely religiously biased about who they will help and support. 7. Worry less about others' and more about your own faults... Buddhism again. Boy, you really should study Buddhism, evidently you like it better than Christianity and wish that Christianity could live up to the standards of Buddhism. 8. Everybody's worthy of eternal life... Christianity doesn't make that claim at all. Not in the least. In fact, according to the Bible anyone who refuses to believe that Jesus is the Son of God is already damned. Now surely you can see why such people cannot possibly be worthy of eternal life, for if they were worthy of eternal life and being denied eternal life then your Christian God would be an untrustworthy hypocrite who damns "worthy people". Christianity always boils down to a need to both have your cake and eat it too, because it's constantly in conflict and contradiction with its own tenants. If you want to believe that anyone can be condemned by a righteous God, as the Bible demands, then you must also believe that they deserve to be condemned and cannot therefore be worthy of eternal life. Your list of postulates that you list here simply don't agree with the tenants of the mythology that you are attempting to support. If the biblical God is said to be a righteous God, then he cannot be condemning worthy people. Therefore it cannot be true that everyone is worthy of eternal life. The religion is so utterly saturated with oxymorons and paradoxes that it can't possibly be true. Only in pantheism is everyone worthy of eternal life, and in that religion everyone ultimately achieves eternal life in the end. So it is the only sound and sane religion. The tenants that you wish could be true for Christianity actually are true for pantheism, which would include Buddhism and others. But clearly they cannot hold true for Christianity as you suggest. So obviously you're supporting a religion that you aren't even in agreement with. You really need to switch over to Buddhism by the looks of your list of what you deem to be important. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_Pan wrote: "Do you still deny the pagan influence on the "church" and the Bible?" I never have denied it. All I ever did was question your meaning of the term "pagan". Obviously it's the same definition that you use although of course you denied it at first, but you can't deny it now. Abra wrote: (in another thread) But then again, this is what religions have always done. Christianity itself has embraced and incorporated many pagan beliefs in an attempt to make it appear more palatable to the pagans. With all of the semantic games you played, you ended up using the term "pagan" in the exact same context as me? And that leaves the fact that you can't refute my challenges with evidence a moot point. Once a person practices and believes as a pagan, they are a pagan. The fact is, a Christian cannot, (by your definiton in the above context), be a pagan. This means that all of your anti-Christian views have been in reality, anti-pagan views. What have you to say about that one? I must confess that I have never spoken with anyone on the Internet in my life who has been as impossible to communicate with than you. I simply conceded that if we use the term "Pagan" as you define it then the term is utterly meaningless because Christianity is paganism by that definition. It's a meaningless bigoted definition. So you are welcome to continue to believe that the Bible is the same exact writings the authors intended. You are welcome to believe in the fantasy crap that isn't actually in there too. Or you can take notice of you own words and realise the Bible has been corrupted post-completion by pagans for the conversion of pagans. Take off the blinders and embrace the truth, there is much more to Christianity than your current awareness allows you to see. Here's my condensed bullet points of Christianity. 1. Thank God for everything... 2. Seek knowledge... 3. Stop being so damn selfish, drop your ego... 4. Love everyone... 5. Stop worrying about how you "appear" to others, both appearance and actions... 6. Help others whenever you can... 7. Worry less about others' and more about your own faults... 8. Everybody's worthy of eternal life... The funny thing is, after a person accomplishes #3, the rest should come naturaly. I don't see where these ideas you offer have much to do with Christianity. 1. Thank God for everything... That would automatically be true of any religion that believes there is a supreme creator. 2. Seek knowledge... No, this is not Christianity because Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible. I could quote man verses in this regard but I see no reason to bother quoting them to you since you always deny the obvious anyway. But even Jesus renounced the "Wise" men. 3. Stop being so damn selfish, drop your ego... That's Buddhism, not Christianity. Christianity is the most arrogant and egocentric religion around. Being based on a jealous egotistical God it just encourages people to take on that same persona. 4. Love everyone... But Christians hate heathen and sinners no matter how much they pretend otherwise. This is especially TRUE if you accept the fact that the authors of the Bible are the TRUE Christians. They are constantly damning sinners and heathens in the name of God. To follow and worship those authors is to support their hatred and bigotry. Jesus himself may have preached love, but Christianity as a whole couldn't care less what Jesus taught, they just use him as an excuse to support their bigotry and hatred of others in his name. 5. Stop worrying about how you "appear" to others, both appearance and actions... Buddhism again, not Christianity at all. 6. Help others whenever you can... Buddhism again. Christians are extremely religiously biased about who they will help and support. 7. Worry less about others' and more about your own faults... Buddhism again. Boy, you really should study Buddhism, evidently you like it better than Christianity and wish that Christianity could live up to the standards of Buddhism. 8. Everybody's worthy of eternal life... Christianity doesn't make that claim at all. Not in the least. In fact, according to the Bible anyone who refuses to believe that Jesus is the Son of God is already damned. Now surely you can see why such people cannot possibly be worthy of eternal life, for if they were worthy of eternal life and being denied eternal life then your Christian God would be an untrustworthy hypocrite who damns "worthy people". Christianity always boils down to a need to both have your cake and eat it too, because it's constantly in conflict and contradiction with its own tenants. If you want to believe that anyone can be condemned by a righteous God, as the Bible demands, then you must also believe that they deserve to be condemned and cannot therefore be worthy of eternal life. Your list of postulates that you list here simply don't agree with the tenants of the mythology that you are attempting to support. If the biblical God is said to be a righteous God, then he cannot be condemning worthy people. Therefore it cannot be true that everyone is worthy of eternal life. The religion is so utterly saturated with oxymorons and paradoxes that it can't possibly be true. Only in pantheism is everyone worthy of eternal life, and in that religion everyone ultimately achieves eternal life in the end. So it is the only sound and sane religion. The tenants that you wish could be true for Christianity actually are true for pantheism, which would include Buddhism and others. But clearly they cannot hold true for Christianity as you suggest. So obviously you're supporting a religion that you aren't even in agreement with. You really need to switch over to Buddhism by the looks of your list of what you deem to be important. Me, impossible? Why, because everyone else believes your BS? Why, because I predict you can't produce evidence? Why, because I recognise the deflection tactics? Why, because I think for myself? If I define paganism? Are you serious!?!? If I define paganism, Cristianity CANNOT be paganism, period. If you define it, Christianity still cannot be called paganism. You can't mix red and blue and still have red, it's that simple... So, you make yet another claim against #2. "No, this is not Christianity because Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible. I could quote man verses in this regard but I see no reason to bother quoting them to you since you always deny the obvious anyway." I'm gonna assume that man=many. I challenge you to not produce many, but just produce one. Always with the "I could provide proof..." crap, huh? I predict, *yet again*, that there will be zero proof of Abra's claim, "Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible". And so that I will not be 100% correct in my predictions, I also predict he will deny making that claim... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why, because everyone else believes your BS? Most people are reasonable enough to recognize the truth of my knowledge. Why, because I predict you can't produce evidence? You already lost that one. Your original prediction was that I couldn't prove that the Bible speaks for God. But clearly I've already given ample proof that it does precisely that . Now you're trying to change to another subject whilst pretending that your first accusation held up when in fact it didn't. Own up to the fact that you were already wrong in your first predication and then maybe we can move on to another one. We can see how many times you're wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why, because everyone else believes your BS? Most people are reasonable enough to recognize the truth of my knowledge. Why, because I predict you can't produce evidence? You already lost that one. Your original prediction was that I couldn't prove that the Bible speaks for God. But clearly I've already given ample proof that it does precisely that . Quoted words does NOT imply "speaking for" anyone. I told you up front that quotes wouldn't do it, but of course your delusional mind didn't pay any attention to that, now did it? Now you're trying to change to another subject whilst pretending that your first accusation held up when in fact it didn't. Oh but it did... You have yet to offer any proof for the things I challenged. But you're good at "pretending" to offer proof of things that I did not challenge, even to blantanly lie and say that I did. Do you still insist that I challenged "only begotten son"? I advise you to look a few posts prior to this before giving your answer. LOL, you are the epitome of changing subjects, which is quite clear by my posts as I'll point out your flawed logic every time. You fill your posts with fluff instead of addressing the issues. And you mostly seem to add to your claims while denying a previous one. I'm flexible, I'll follow your lead and just make the next challenge. It doesn't matter to me which one of a dozen you'd address, as there is no proof for any of them... What do you know, you did it again... The last claim you made which I challenged was ignored of course. I suppose you didn't see this? "So, you make yet another claim against #2. "No, this is not Christianity because Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible. I could quote man verses in this regard but I see no reason to bother quoting them to you since you always deny the obvious anyway." I'm gonna assume that man=many. I challenge you to not produce many, but just produce one. Always with the "I could provide proof..." crap, huh? " Own up to the fact that you were already wrong in your first predication and then maybe we can move on to another one. We can see how many times you're wrong. My predictions have always been right. I predict no evidence will be forthcoming from you and you fulfill the prediction. All you have to do is deny that you made this claim and I'll be battin' 1000: "Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible" So do you deny making that claim? If not, then I want to see the proof. You got that??? I don't want you changing the subject and then trying to place the blame on me. I'm directly challenging this claim and this claim alone... "Christianity demands that you only seek knowledge within the Bible" Of course I don't expect any evidence as there is none available for that Moronic concept, but I do expect denial and fluff to try and deflect from the issues at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're just trying to pick up on something that you think you might finally have a bit of success with.
Poor wording on my part. I should have said, ""Christianity demands that you only seek divine knowledge within the Bible" (which is what I actually meant) and this would have been understood in a friendly conversation. Just the same I can support my view (as always). I never post anything that I can't support. I don't typically offer views that I can't back up. Here's a quote showing that Protestant believe that only the Bible should be the source of divine knowledge. From this site: http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Catholic-Protestant.html Quote: One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the sole source of God’s special revelation to mankind, and as such it teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “Sola Scriptura” and is one of the “Five Solas” (sola being Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation as summaries of some of the important differences between Catholics and Protestants. Here's another site, and I'm sure I could offer many more. But these two should be more than sufficient. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm In the table they have listed the Authority which Catholics and Protestants allow as a means of finding divine knowledge: From their table: Catholics allow for Scripture and tradition (plus the Catholics allow for a wider base of scripture) Protestants allow only for Scripture alone (only the Old and New Testaments allowed) So there you go, you just lost twice in a row. You'd be better off not accusing people of things or demanding that they 'prove' their views. Just ask them if they can support their views with something and they will probably be glad to assist you. In the meantime, if you believe that Christians are free to look elsewhere outside of the Bible for divine knowledge, then you must either be Catholic, or some other sect that doesn't respect the tenants of Protestantisms. May I ask what denomination of Christianity you support or adhere to? Perhaps you could provide a link to a site that explains the tenants you view as being "Christianity". If they conflict with the sites I've already posted above, then perhaps Christianity itself has had a major breakdown in structure as a religion. Or possibly you're thinking in terms of the New Age "Designer Christianity" where everyone just makes up their own religion and calls it "Christianity". I believe that I've already mentioned that possibility before, and stated that even my view that Jesus was a mortal Buddhist could qualify as "Designer Christianity" since there are no rules and anyone can just create the religion based on whatever they see fit. I'm all for that.  But if you are a "Designer Christian" who just makes up your own personal interpretations based on what you'd like Christianity to be, then you're not even addressing the same issues that I'm addressing, because I'm addressing the MAINSTREAM FORMAL ORGANIZED RELIGION. Not the New Age personal "Designer Stuff". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Mon 08/23/10 12:15 AM
|
|
You're just trying to pick up on something that you think you might finally have a bit of success with. Poor wording on my part. I should have said, ""Christianity demands that you only seek divine knowledge within the Bible" (which is what I actually meant) and this would have been understood in a friendly conversation. Just the same I can support my view (as always). I never post anything that I can't support. I don't typically offer views that I can't back up. Here's a quote showing that Protestant believe that only the Bible should be the source of divine knowledge. From this site: http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Catholic-Protestant.html Quote: One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the sole source of God’s special revelation to mankind, and as such it teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “Sola Scriptura” and is one of the “Five Solas” (sola being Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation as summaries of some of the important differences between Catholics and Protestants. Here's another site, and I'm sure I could offer many more. But these two should be more than sufficient. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm In the table they have listed the Authority which Catholics and Protestants allow as a means of finding divine knowledge: From their table: Catholics allow for Scripture and tradition (plus the Catholics allow for a wider base of scripture) Protestants allow only for Scripture alone (only the Old and New Testaments allowed) So there you go, you just lost twice in a row. I can't believe it! You just fulfilled my prediction by denying that you made that claim. And changing the goal posts is not a logical debate, so your claim that I lost twice in a row is false. Have you no shame? I'll refute that using one of your lines... "You can list as many opinions as you like. That doesn't change the FACT that they are still nothing but opinions." But, I said I'm flexible, so your little goal post relocation doesn't bother me at all.... I can pick that apart 2 ways, by the fact that you keep giving pagans as examples of Christianity or by the fact that there is no scriptural evidence to support such a Moronic concept. 1st, evidence of the fact that they're pagan, notice these are your words quoted, not mine... "But then again, this is what religions have always done. Christianity itself has embraced and incorporated many pagan beliefs in an attempt to make it appear more palatable to the pagans." You have stated before that you believe Catholicism is the only true form of Christianity. Thus, by your own words, you recognise the pagan influence on the Catholic church. Only paganism incorporates other's beliefs into their religion, Christianity does NOT. 2nd, I could ask you to produce evidence, but I know that'll never happen. Instead, I'll provide evidence against your last claim and this new one with which you so foolishly claim victory without a proper rebuttal. From Proverbs, pay close attention to Proverbs 18:1 where it states "all" wisdom which contradicts your (new) claim that divine knowledge should only be sought within the Bible. Proverbs 14:15 15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:33 33 Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding: but that which is in the midst of fools is made known. Proverbs 15:14 14 The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness Proverbs 18:1-7 1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. 2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. 3 When the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt, and with ignominy reproach. 4 The words of a man's mouth are as deep waters, and the wellspring of wisdom as a flowing brook. 5 It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment. 6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. 7 A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul. Proverbs 18:13-15 13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. 14 The spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity; but a wounded spirit who can bear? 15 The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge. Proverbs 19:8 8 He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul: he that keepeth understanding shall find good. Here we have a warning of false churches... 2 Corinthians 11:1-17 1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6 But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things. 7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 16 I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. 17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Notice verse 17 above contradicts your claim of the Bible claiming to speak for God. And pay attention to the next quote, it proves 3 of my points... The Bible doesn't claim to speak for God, divine knowledge can come from "afar" and God loves everyone. Job 36:1-5 1 Elihu also proceeded, and said, 2 Suffer me a little, and I will shew thee that I have yet to speak on God's behalf. 3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker. 4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee. 5 Behold, God is mighty, and despiseth not any: he is mighty in strength and wisdom. Proof that there are no "denominations" of Christianity and that some people were sent to the church purpousely: (there would be no need of apostles, prophets and healers if all divine knowledge was within the Bible) 1 Corinthians 12:25-28, 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. More proof of the false church: Matthew 15:8-9 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And why do I always ask for proof? lol, not that this is the reason, but here ya go... 1 Thessalonians 5:21 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Well there you go, you just lost 5 or 6 times in a row. You'd be better off not accusing people of things or demanding that they 'prove' their views. Just ask them if they can support their views with something and they will probably be glad to assist you. It's not your views that I object to per se', but the claims that the Bible supports your views. I've never expected you to deliver evidence, in fact I constantly stated that I expected none. In the meantime, if you believe that Christians are free to look elsewhere outside of the Bible for divine knowledge, then you must either be Catholic, or some other sect that doesn't respect the tenants of Protestantisms. And you must obviously have missed my post where I called Catholics pagans and later dismissed Protestants as a scism of Catholicism. I claim to be Christian and I state that by definition, a Christian cannot be a pagan. Does every night's rest erase the prior day? May I ask what denomination of Christianity you support or adhere to? Perhaps you could provide a link to a site that explains the tenants you view as being "Christianity". If they conflict with the sites I've already posted above, then perhaps Christianity itself has had a major breakdown in structure as a religion. Or possibly you're thinking in terms of the New Age "Designer Christianity" where everyone just makes up their own religion and calls it "Christianity". I believe that I've already mentioned that possibility before, and stated that even my view that Jesus was a mortal Buddhist could qualify as "Designer Christianity" since there are no rules and anyone can just create the religion based on whatever they see fit. I'm all for that. But if you are a "Designer Christian" who just makes up your own personal interpretations based on what you'd like Christianity to be, then you're not even addressing the same issues that I'm addressing, because I'm addressing the MAINSTREAM FORMAL ORGANIZED RELIGION. Not the New Age personal "Designer Stuff". And no, you do not get to ask me what "denomination" I am. Until you learn to carry on an honest discussion, you get nothing from me except: Proverbs 14:6-7 6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth. 7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 08/23/10 12:44 PM
|
|
Pagan, it seems is defined in various ways. Some dictionaries actually attempt to define a pagan by listing exclusions, like – Not Christian, Jewish, Muslim.
But most include some line of reasoning such as – a name given to idolaters, and , worshipers of false gods, and, heathen. According to the ARTFL Project: Webster unabridged 1913 Pagan was the name given to idolaters in the early Christian church, because the villagers, being most remote from the centers of instruction, remained for a long time unconverted. That makes sense considering the word Pagan derived from L. paganus a countryman, peasant, villager, a pagan, fr. paganus of or pertaining to the country, rustic, also, pagan, fr. pagus a district, canton, the country, perh. orig., a district with fixed boundaries So research about the word pagan and how it evolved includes the fact that Christians, themselves, modified the word so as NOT TO BE INCLUDED in the definition. But not before the Jews decided that the word pagan included Gentiles. So, if we use the “Christian” modified form of the word, can we show that Christians are idolaters and worshipers of false gods? YES, we can, by reviewing historical documents related to early Hebrew/Christian theology, such as Ancient Gnostic texts found in upper Egypt at Nag Hammadi in December 1945; Ancient Hebrew scrolls found in Palestine at the Wadi Qumran near the Dead Sea in 1947-1956; and Ancient Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas found in Egypt at Beni Masah in the 1970's. It becomes obvious that Christianity (before it evolved) was quite different and even the beliefs surrounding Jesus were nothing like what they are today. Many of the writings of those earliest writings (see above) specifically left out of ‘Church’ scripture (Bible) because they did not serve Man’s purpose (the Church). The Church (there were no others at the time) actually took form with the assistance of Constantine. However, before that formation, Constantine had already begun to change Christianity though his own conversion. Included with the new Church were all the ‘pagan’ rites and rituals. Naturally the Church HAD to have ONLY scripture that would support all the new features. Makes, since they’re gain in power was beholding to Constantine. Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger – all believed that Christianity was a modified version of Platonism. St. Augustine was a Platonist, one among many Christian philosophers. Since Plato was into metaphysics which naturally pits materialism against naturalism, we can make many connections between biblical scripture and Platonism. (are they worshipping false gods yet? – almost) So the philosophy and most of the rituals actually derive from paganistic ideals. Then there are the biblical duplications of the Serapis Religion of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Specifically those surrounding Osiris, Serapis, and Apis. Christians did something unusual – they put together the three gods of those ancient religions and came up with the idea of the Holy Trinity – Three Gods in one. NOW, we see how the false gods became the one triune god of the bible. Most education theologians recognize all of this, even Martin Luther King wrote about the role of paganism in shaping Christianity. Christians today, by their own definition are not pagans – but by historical reference we can clearly see that Christians are pagans, in fact perhaps they are even heathens as their religion is not really their own but a compilation which greatly deviated from the Jewish religion and how the Jews actually viewed Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 08/23/10 07:28 PM
|
|
2 Corinthians 11:1-17 [.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. Since Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger (and others) – believed that Christianity was a modified version of Platonism, and because some of the earliest and influential proponents of Christianity, such as St. Augustine were Platonists, might this verse be used as proof that Christians are pagans, for the Jesus of modern Christianity is an entirely different Jesus than the Jesus of Thomas or in the ancient Gnostic texts and even in the ancient Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas? And 14 & 15 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. I havn’t really looked, but are there any ministers within the mainstream Christian religions who do not accept money for their services as ministers? Which brings me to some other scripture: Proverbs. Perhaps Proverbs is best understood if it is read from the beginning, with Proverbs 1:1. 1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, To perceive the words of understanding, 3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, Justice, judgment, and equity; 4 To give prudence to the simple, To the young man knowledge and discretion— 5 A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel, 6 To understand a proverb and an enigma, The words of the wise and their riddles. 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction. Notice number 7 – how odd that should be there if, in fact, Proverbs is suggesting that wisdom and knowledge comes from sources outside the Bible. I think if Proverbs is reviewed from the beginning, it would be seen as a warning to people who would refuse to undertake ‘instruction’ (about scripture). They, who are not made wise through their own hard work and with right instruction are but simple fools. Fools would follow the words of others and because they are NOT wise through their OWN knowledge (of scripture) they will follow lips (words of others). 3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; NOTICE that to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity – is to become knowledgeable. Where else would Jews or Christians look for such wisdom??? Understanding is important to gaining wisdom – 14:6 knowledge is easy to him that understandeth. Those who do not take instruction, will not understand, of their own accord, they will thus lack understanding and have no wisdom and they will be fools, easily led by the words of others. When interpreted in this way it is actually more logical, because we are talking about the Hebrews here and their total commitment to study, understanding, and knowledge (of their scripture). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: Well there you go, you just lost 5 or 6 times in a row. It's impossible for me to lose anything here bud. Only you can lose because it's only you who is making false accusations about other people and demanding that they "prove" their views. I've already given sufficient examples to support my views via the example of The Ten Commandments, and through the New Testament claims about Jesus Christ. I also gave a few other obvious examples, such as in the story of Noah, Job, and Joshua, etc. If you can find contradictory examples within the same biblical cannon then all you've shown is that the authors of the biblical stories are indeed confused and untrustworthy. You haven't done a thing to falsify the truths that I have shown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pagan, it seems is defined in various ways. Some dictionaries actually attempt to define a pagan by listing exclusions, like – Not Christian, Jewish, Muslim. But most include some line of reasoning such as – a name given to idolaters, and , worshipers of false gods, and, heathen. According to the ARTFL Project: Webster unabridged 1913 Pagan was the name given to idolaters in the early Christian church, because the villagers, being most remote from the centers of instruction, remained for a long time unconverted. That makes sense considering the word Pagan derived from L. paganus a countryman, peasant, villager, a pagan, fr. paganus of or pertaining to the country, rustic, also, pagan, fr. pagus a district, canton, the country, perh. orig., a district with fixed boundaries So research about the word pagan and how it evolved includes the fact that Christians, themselves, modified the word so as NOT TO BE INCLUDED in the definition. But not before the Jews decided that the word pagan included Gentiles. So, if we use the “Christian” modified form of the word, can we show that Christians are idolaters and worshipers of false gods? YES, we can, by reviewing historical documents related to early Hebrew/Christian theology, such as Ancient Gnostic texts found in upper Egypt at Nag Hammadi in December 1945; Ancient Hebrew scrolls found in Palestine at the Wadi Qumran near the Dead Sea in 1947-1956; and Ancient Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas found in Egypt at Beni Masah in the 1970's. It becomes obvious that Christianity (before it evolved) was quite different and even the beliefs surrounding Jesus were nothing like what they are today. Many of the writings of those earliest writings (see above) specifically left out of ‘Church’ scripture (Bible) because they did not serve Man’s purpose (the Church). The Church (there were no others at the time) actually took form with the assistance of Constantine. However, before that formation, Constantine had already begun to change Christianity though his own conversion. Included with the new Church were all the ‘pagan’ rites and rituals. Naturally the Church HAD to have ONLY scripture that would support all the new features. Makes, since they’re gain in power was beholding to Constantine. Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger – all believed that Christianity was a modified version of Platonism. St. Augustine was a Platonist, one among many Christian philosophers. Since Plato was into metaphysics which naturally pits materialism against naturalism, we can make many connections between biblical scripture and Platonism. (are they worshipping false gods yet? – almost) So the philosophy and most of the rituals actually derive from paganistic ideals. Then there are the biblical duplications of the Serapis Religion of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Specifically those surrounding Osiris, Serapis, and Apis. Christians did something unusual – they put together the three gods of those ancient religions and came up with the idea of the Holy Trinity – Three Gods in one. NOW, we see how the false gods became the one triune god of the bible. Most education theologians recognize all of this, even Martin Luther King wrote about the role of paganism in shaping Christianity. Christians today, by their own definition are not pagans – but by historical reference we can clearly see that Christians are pagans, in fact perhaps they are even heathens as their religion is not really their own but a compilation which greatly deviated from the Jewish religion and how the Jews actually viewed Jesus. Thank you Red, I was beginning to think I was the only one who knew the true history here. I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I'd like to clarify one point. you said: "So research about the word pagan and how it evolved includes the fact that Christians, themselves, modified the word so as NOT TO BE INCLUDED in the definition. But not before the Jews decided that the word pagan included Gentiles." Is that the definion of "a person who does not worship the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam"? If it is, then wouldn't those "sects" that worship the trinity be considered pagan by their own definition? Even if we can't agree on the definition of pagan, I've put forth before that a "true" Christian (I hate needing to use that term), worships only the Hebrew God and follows Jesus' teachings. Rumor has it that Jesus was Jewish... I've said a long time ago that my beliefs would offend quite a few "Christians" and that's because those that I would offend aren't actualy Christian........ What is your opinion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 08/24/10 07:36 PM
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: Even if we can't agree on the definition of pagan, I've put forth before that a "true" Christian (I hate needing to use that term), worships only the Hebrew God and follows Jesus' teachings. Rumor has it that Jesus was Jewish... I've said a long time ago that my beliefs would offend quite a few "Christians" and that's because those that I would offend aren't actualy Christian........ What is your opinion? But isn't that the view of every "Christian" sect basically? We hate to use the term "true Christian" but those who don't believe like us aren't actually Christians?  Every Protestant Paper Pope (or officially ordained Catholic Pope, for that matter) is under the delusion that only they hold the truth of Christianity. The Major Fundamental Basis of all Christianity There is one thing that all Christians will ultimately agree upon, and that is that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of the God of the Old Testament. This is the bottom line for all of Christianity. Take away this single belief and it can no longer be called "Christianity". This is why I cannot call my views on the historical rumors of Jesus "Christianity", because in my view Jesus could not possibly have been the "Only Begotten Son" of the jealous and personified God of the Old Testament. The Major Problem with a believe that Jesus is the "Only Begotten Son" of God" The major problem lies in the crucifixion. If Jesus was indeed the "Only Begotten Son" of God sent to Earth for a purpose, then the crucifixion necessarily had to be part of that purpose. Moreover, it necessarily had to have been God's idea and plan. Why is that? Well, it should be obvious. You can't have an all-powerful all-wise God sending his son to Earth merely to teach moral values and not intending to have him crucified, yet much to God's shock and horror, mortal men crucify him anyway. That simply makes no sense for many reasons. The main reason being that such a God would not even be able to save his "Only Begotten Son" from such a horrible and unplanned fate. If this God can't even protect and save his "Only Begotten Son" from the evils of this world, then surely this God would be totally and utterly helpless to help normal mortals like you and me out. In other words, a God who couldn't even protect his own son would be a totally powerless and useless "god". Therefore, the only thing that makes sense in this story is to recognize that IF Jesus was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God THEN Jesus also necessarily had to have been the Sacrificial Lamb of God. But that just leads to yet another huge problem If Jesus was indeed Sacrificial Lamb of God, then to whom was he "Sacrificed"? God most certainly wouldn't have been sacrificing his son to appease mortal men. That makes no sense at all. There's only two other options left: God could have been sacrificing Jesus to appease Satan. But that gives Satan enormous power and suggest that God genuinely views Satan as a serious threat who need to be appeased. Once again we get into an area of a supposedly all-powerful God appeasing a stupid fallen angel. Most Christians don't even like that idea anyway. So finally we have the only entity left to appease, which is God himself! God sacrificing his Only Begotten Son unto himself to appease himself so that he can forgive mankind their sins. And that is basically the major view, although people don't like to think of it like that, they tend to say things like, "Well, God made these rules and they had to be satisfied in order to maintain justice and righteousness" But what rules? That the wages of sin are death? Even that doesn't work because the kind of death we're speaking about there is spiritual death not physical death, and Jesus didn't die spiritually, he's supposed to still be alive today sitting at the right-hand of God at home in his perfect heaven. That wouldn't have been any sacrifice at all really. So as far as I'm concerned any and all interpretations of these mythological stories end with absolute and total paradoxes. So what's the alternative? What truly makes sense? Well, just drop the silly notion that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of the biblical God and all paradoxes disappear. Now you just have an honest decent man, Jesus, trying to teach good morals and a pantheistic view of God to a society that can't truly understand what he's trying to say. Jesus is also simultaneously publicly ranting and raving about how hypocritical the Scribes and Pharisees are. Even the Gospels have included this behavior. So Jesus was the Abracadabra of year zero. The Scribes and Pharisees finally got peeved, and then incited a mob to have Jesus crucified. Jesus evidently made this easier for them by losing his temper and overturning their money tables. Jesus was then crucified and that started a whole lot of rumors and public discussion because he had indeed gained some fame as a preacher of love. So there was no-doubt a lot of anger and gossip about his wrongful crucifixion. Those rumors eventually led to the early writings of the New Testament, which was basically the gospel of Mark, repeated by Matthew and Luke, and also the gospel of John. All the rambles of Paul came later and actually amounted to nothing more than his personal opinions and view of what Jesus had actually stood for. The vast bulk of the New Testament is just commentary by Paul. He was also the one who formed the idea of a "Church" as the "Body of Christ". Jesus himself wasn't even into formal religion of churches. He's views were far more pantheistic in nature. Jesus actually renounced the Scribes and Pharisees, so he wasn't supporting any kind of religious authorities. The Biblical Cannon, or the Human Cannon? What gives the Bible clout? Really nothing more than the continued proselytizing of it by people who want to believe it. Did all humans believe that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God? Well, no they didn't. In fact, even the Jews themselves refused to believe it. There were many people who rejected this notion. However, their opinions weren't put into the "Biblical Cannon". Why not? Because the people who put together the Biblical cannon had an agenda to make out like Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God. That's why the Bible is really nothing more than a biased collection of opinions. The Bible basically represents and "Ancient" form of and Internet Forum. Where the moderators simply deleted all posts that disagreed with the major theme that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God. They basically kept the opinions of only FIVE MEN. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul. Yes, I realize that there are some other authors tossed in there too, but basically the bulk of the religion is based on the opinions of FIVE MEN. And some of those were just rehashing the views of a previous writer Mark. So basically all of Christianity reduces to the opinions and view of only two or three individuals really. Billions of people all around the globe today are taking seriously some silly stories made up by less men that you can count using the fingers on just one hand! It makes far more sense to me to just drop the silly claim that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God. That an utterly silly notion to begin with IMHO. It also just leads to paradoxes and implications that God has some serious problems. Even the Gospels never have Jesus making this claim directly himself! Only in very vague round about ways that can easily be seen to be pantheistic statements by Jesus if a person is familiar with the pantheistic view of God. Plus, can we truly trust men who claim to be 'quoting' Jesus verbatim decades after he died? I think not. At the very best this mythology should be something that individual might want to consider. But trying to proselytize it as some sort of 'absolute truth' is simply unwarranted. And the very idea that one so-called Christian should be able to say to another so-called Christian, "You aren't actually a Christian", is even more ludicrous. The whole thing is wide-open to personal interpretation. This is why Judaism, Catholicism, and the many protesting sect of Protestantism actually exist. The whole thing is wide-open to personal interpretation. And my personal interpretation is that Jesus never even claimed to be the "Only Begotten Son" of God directly himself anyway. And I see no reason to assume that he was. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: Even if we can't agree on the definition of pagan, I've put forth before that a "true" Christian (I hate needing to use that term), worships only the Hebrew God and follows Jesus' teachings. Rumor has it that Jesus was Jewish... I've said a long time ago that my beliefs would offend quite a few "Christians" and that's because those that I would offend aren't actualy Christian........ What is your opinion? But isn't that the view of every "Christian" sect basically? We hate to use the term "true Christian" but those who don't believe like us aren't actually Christians? Every Protestant Paper Pope (or officially ordained Catholic Pope, for that matter) is under the delusion that only they hold the truth of Christianity. The Major Fundamental Basis of all Christianity There is one thing that all Christians will ultimately agree upon, and that is that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of the God of the Old Testament. This is the bottom line for all of Christianity. Take away this single belief and it can no longer be called "Christianity". This is why I cannot call my views on the historical rumors of Jesus "Christianity", because in my view Jesus could not possibly have been the "Only Begotten Son" of the jealous and personified God of the Old Testament. The Major Problem with a believe that Jesus is the "Only Begotten Son" of God" The major problem lies in the crucifixion. If Jesus was indeed the "Only Begotten Son" of God sent to Earth for a purpose, then the crucifixion necessarily had to be part of that purpose. Moreover, it necessarily had to have been God's idea and plan. Why is that? Well, it should be obvious. You can't have an all-powerful all-wise God sending his son to Earth merely to teach moral values and not intending to have him crucified, yet much to God's shock and horror, mortal men crucify him anyway. That simply makes no sense for many reasons. The main reason being that such a God would not even be able to save his "Only Begotten Son" from such a horrible and unplanned fate. If this God can't even protect and save his "Only Begotten Son" from the evils of this world, then surely this God would be totally and utterly helpless to help normal mortals like you and me out. In other words, a God who couldn't even protect his own son would be a totally powerless and useless "god". Therefore, the only thing that makes sense in this story is to recognize that IF Jesus was indeed the Only Begotten Son of God THEN Jesus also necessarily had to have been the Sacrificial Lamb of God. But that just leads to yet another huge problem If Jesus was indeed Sacrificial Lamb of God, then to whom was he "Sacrificed"? God most certainly wouldn't have been sacrificing his son to appease mortal men. That makes no sense at all. There's only two other options left: God could have been sacrificing Jesus to appease Satan. But that gives Satan enormous power and suggest that God genuinely views Satan as a serious threat who need to be appeased. Once again we get into an area of a supposedly all-powerful God appeasing a stupid fallen angel. Most Christians don't even like that idea anyway. So finally we have the only entity left to appease, which is God himself! God sacrificing his Only Begotten Son unto himself to appease himself so that he can forgive mankind their sins. And that is basically the major view, although people don't like to think of it like that, they tend to say things like, "Well, God made these rules and they had to be satisfied in order to maintain justice and righteousness" But what rules? That the wages of sin are death? Even that doesn't work because the kind of death we're speaking about there is spiritual death not physical death, and Jesus didn't die spiritually, he's supposed to still be alive today sitting at the right-hand of God at home in his perfect heaven. That wouldn't have been any sacrifice at all really. So as far as I'm concerned any and all interpretations of these mythological stories end with absolute and total paradoxes. So what's the alternative? What truly makes sense? Well, just drop the silly notion that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of the biblical God and all paradoxes disappear. Now you just have an honest decent man, Jesus, trying to teach good morals and a pantheistic view of God to a society that can't truly understand what he's trying to say. Jesus is also simultaneously publicly ranting and raving about how hypocritical the Scribes and Pharisees are. Even the Gospels have included this behavior. So Jesus was the Abracadabra of year zero. The Scribes and Pharisees finally got peeved, and then incited a mob to have Jesus crucified. Jesus evidently made this easier for them by losing his temper and overturning their money tables. Jesus was then crucified and that started a whole lot of rumors and public discussion because he had indeed gained some fame as a preacher of love. So there was no-doubt a lot of anger and gossip about his wrongful crucifixion. Those rumors eventually led to the early writings of the New Testament, which was basically the gospel of Mark, repeated by Matthew and Luke, and also the gospel of John. All the rambles of Paul came later and actually amounted to nothing more than his personal opinions and view of what Jesus had actually stood for. The vast bulk of the New Testament is just commentary by Paul. He was also the one who formed the idea of a "Church" as the "Body of Christ". Jesus himself wasn't even into formal religion of churches. He's views were far more pantheistic in nature. Jesus actually renounced the Scribes and Pharisees, so he wasn't supporting any kind of religious authorities. The Biblical Cannon, or the Human Cannon? What gives the Bible clout? Really nothing more than the continued proselytizing of it by people who want to believe it. Did all humans believe that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God? Well, no they didn't. In fact, even the Jews themselves refused to believe it. There were many people who rejected this notion. However, their opinions weren't put into the "Biblical Cannon". Why not? Because the people who put together the Biblical cannon had an agenda to make out like Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God. That's why the Bible is really nothing more than a biased collection of opinions. The Bible basically represents and "Ancient" form of and Internet Forum. Where the moderators simply deleted all posts that disagreed with the major theme that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God. They basically kept the opinions of only FIVE MEN. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul. Yes, I realize that there are some other authors tossed in there too, but basically the bulk of the religion is based on the opinions of FIVE MEN. And some of those were just rehashing the views of a previous writer Mark. So basically all of Christianity reduces to the opinions and view of only two or three individuals really. Billions of people all around the globe today are taking seriously some silly stories made up by less men that you can count using the fingers on just one hand! It makes far more sense to me to just drop the silly claim that Jesus was the "Only Begotten Son" of God. That an utterly silly notion to begin with IMHO. It also just leads to paradoxes and implications that God has some serious problems. Even the Gospels never have Jesus making this claim directly himself! Only in very vague round about ways that can easily be seen to be pantheistic statements by Jesus if a person is familiar with the pantheistic view of God. Plus, can we truly trust men who claim to be 'quoting' Jesus verbatim decades after he died? I think not. At the very best this mythology should be something that individual might want to consider. But trying to proselytize it as some sort of 'absolute truth' is simply unwarranted. And the very idea that one so-called Christian should be able to say to another so-called Christian, "You aren't actually a Christian", is even more ludicrous. The whole thing is wide-open to personal interpretation. This is why Judaism, Catholicism, and the many protesting sect of Protestantism actually exist. The whole thing is wide-open to personal interpretation. And my personal interpretation is that Jesus never even claimed to be the "Only Begotten Son" of God directly himself anyway. And I see no reason to assume that he was. Until you learn to carry on an honest discussion, you get nothing from me except: Proverbs 14:6-7 6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth. 7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge |
|
|
|
|
