Originally posted by Tamalan So your telling me that these people ive known, who have spent years in Divinity school and dedicated their lives to the christian faith are wrong>? You have to understand why is see double standards when christians who use the same source material, the bible, cant even agree between themselves which is correct. Think if i ever choose a faith, im gonna go Wicca :P Peace to you guys, may your God go with you
Actually i think it's more along the lines of you misunderstanding them or maybe your questioning was wrong.
because If those people that you've known truly only believe that the bible is a fictional book of tall tales... then What is it exactly that they believe in? If you dont believe that the bible is true then... I dont even understand how you can believe in the judaic god... Thats why I figure there was some miscommunication between you and your peeps.
Quick question not an insult or anything But how old were you when you asked these questions? If you were a younger teen.. They may have tried to explain it in a simplified form....
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Those are from the first three pages. Maybe they could be consolidated under the topic "Come take your potshots at the Religious here!" Again, christians are suppossed to be the loud mouth, pushy, preachy, in your face types?
A lot of them, including some on here can be described that way.
Then again, I see a lot more loudmouths on the atheists' side... And thats the one I generally end up supporting, even if indirectly, to my regret.
As to the original topic before it got sidetracked by this endless flamewar as usual...
My belief has always been that he was in fact a man with a message to spread. Whether he was the son of God, another prophet, or simply another one of the great peacelovers in history is a question that may never be answered.
One thing is for certain as far as I am concerned, whatever and whoever he may have once been, those who followed him were in it for power. Our image of who he was has definately been warped to solidify the church's power, how far? once again impossible to tell, it was too long ago.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
The bible isn't meant to be taken as literal fact. When it says "God did this in one day", it doesn't necessarily mean it happened in 24 of our hours. One major example within the Book of Mormon (essentially another testament of Jesus Christ, it's one of the main books used by Mormons), in one of the early stories it talks about two groups of people. One group of people followed the teachings of God, and the other group of people was 'wicked' and 'bad' and stuff like that. Now in the story, it says that God punished the wicked people by giving them a dark skin. People immediately jump up and say "Omg, that just said anyone with dark skin is a sinner!" but again it's an interpretation thing. The word used is "skin" but everyone takes it too literally. When it said skin it didn't mean your physical skin, but your visage. The word it means is actually "aura". God gave them a dark "aura" to punish them for being wicked. Not really the point but a good example of how literal and interpretation are two very dfiferent things.
The bible is supposed to be a guideline on how to live your life, it's supposed to teach you lessons that help you grow and prosper. Part of it is to make you think and find your own answers to the questions. That way you will actually learn the nature of your personal relationship with the universe, as opposed to learning the expected answer like it'll be a test at the end of your life.
Tamalan I singled you out because you singled me out. You were the one who first suggested that I was being aggressive and 'plumbing moral depths'. Once again I was simply responding in kind.
You have also conflicted yourself in your other posts. You say "aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek?" like it is a literal interpretation, and then saying that you were taught that the bible is not literal and more of a book of metaphors.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that you can't defend yourself if someone comes after you. 'Turning the other cheek' is a metaphor that's open to each and everyone's own interpretation. To me that simply means if someone's a jerk to you, don't harbor a grudge. Also, turn the other cheek would imply that you don't leave the same cheek to be injured again, wouldn't it?
The whole 'turn the other cheek' and 'peace and love' arguments are frequently used by non-christians in an attempt to stop any retaliation which they know is deserved. You can't start punching a christian and then expect him not to defend himself because of "love thy neighbour" and the like.
As far as 'double standards', I can assure you that atheists have them as well. Case in point, is the way that some atheists will claim a christian is trying to 'force their beliefs on him', and then turn around and try to refute/undermine christianity, in effect trying to 'force his beliefs on them'.
For the record, I'm a Mormon (one type of Christian), and I have different beliefs than many other christians. Infact I have different beliefs than some Mormons. Some of us Mormons (I can't say all cause I don't know for sure) believe that Christ wasn't actually a part of God, though he was a God-like being, and he was the Son of God, but we are Children of God too, and it's possible to atain that level of being. I know I won't because I don't obey all the rules of my Church, but the way I practice my religion works for me and it makes me feel secure spiritually, I am prepared to accept the consequences for my actions when that time comes.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Nope, im not saying these people didnt believe in Jesus, God etc, but that the examples in the bible were metaphors/parables, stories told by Jesus etc to guide people to leading a better life. Both these people believed in evolution, although it was an evolution 'overseen/created' by God.
Must be a difference between their faith and yours.
And to answer your question, the C of Vicar taught me when i was 11-13, the Deaconess I knew between the age of 16 - early 20's. Enjoyed many a glass of wine and a good debate with her ( lol not when i was 16, but in the latter years )
Originally posted by Tamalan So your telling me that these people ive known, who have spent years in Divinity school and dedicated their lives to the christian faith are wrong>? You have to understand why is see double standards when christians who use the same source material, the bible, cant even agree between themselves which is correct. Think if i ever choose a faith, im gonna go Wicca :P Peace to you guys, may your God go with you
That's not actually double standards, that's 'different interpretations'. The fact that people can disagree on these things is good for their spirituality because it means they'll actually think about the issues.
If I ever convert, I'm definately converting to Asatru, that's a cool religion for sure.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by Tamalan So your telling me that these people ive known, who have spent years in Divinity school and dedicated their lives to the christian faith are wrong>? You have to understand why is see double standards when christians who use the same source material, the bible, cant even agree between themselves which is correct. Think if i ever choose a faith, im gonna go Wicca :P Peace to you guys, may your God go with you
That's not actually double standards, that's 'different interpretations'. The fact that people can disagree on these things is good for their spirituality because it means they'll actually think about the issues.
If I ever convert, I'm definately converting to Asatru, that's a cool religion for sure.
Norse Heathenism... lol pretty cool... hell go for it, sounds like fun
Originally posted by Tamalan Originally posted by ConverseSC Originally posted by Copeland Acutally you're not far from the truth. Jesus and his "disciples" were not the only group of people doing what they did at that time. It was actually quite common. Kind of like Hippies in volkswagon vans back in the 60's. There's no evidence (not a single piece) that Jesus was real. Most of the Old Testament which is the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (you know those idiots who believe there is only one god - their god - and all other are infidels or doomed to hell) Is actually based of Egyptian occult teachings. The very teaching that Moses (the primary author of the old testament) was taught while growing up in egypt. There is a distinct correlation between the old testament and the teaching of the Aten. The Aten was the first attempt at monotheism in Egypt. The Aten was actually a ploy by Aten Ra the pharoah to take power from the cults and temples that already existed and wielded a power equal to the pharoah. So i guess you can see what i'm saying. Religion has always been a con that is used to claim power by people with no morals. Ask the native americans how christians treated them? When did christ teach genocide? Ask the native africans how Arab muslims treat them? When did Allah teach genocide? Those are only the 2 most glaring examples of church or mosque suppported genocide. To borrow from the aten - You should judge a tree by the fruit that it bares. If it bares rotten fruit, tear it up by the roots.
Wow. You try so hard to.
There is evidence that Jesus did in fact exist, including many Roman text and documents.
As for the Old Testament being influenced by "Egyptian" mythology. Perhaps, but a lot of the religous stories that influence date all the way back to the time of the Ancient Sumerians and Akkadians, and the many of the Egyptian gods are simply borrowed from other cultures that existed before them as well.
I'm not sure of the exact quote, but a man once said, "Don't let the pratice ruin the belief", which simply means that its completely asinine to critisize an entire religion for what SOME choose to use it for. Of course there will always be corrupt men who are able to inspire and lead a great number of people to do horrible acts in the name of religion, just as there will be men who can do it under the believe of racial superioty or cultural beliefs. Honestly, your examples are stupid. I can't put it more elegantly then that. Yeah, Christians killed native americans in the past. Guess what? Many of them also believed that if God "choose" your soul at the beginning of time to ascend into his kingdom, then it didn't really matter what you did on earth. Rape, pillage, and kill.
I don't know what point you're trying to make by bringing up such obvious contradictions to the BASIC FOUNDATIONS of the entire religon, but it certainly didn't work.
Originally posted by Blurr For the record, I'm a Mormon (one type of Christian), and I have different beliefs than many other christians. Infact I have different beliefs than some Mormons. Some of us Mormons (I can't say all cause I don't know for sure) believe that Christ wasn't actually a part of God, though he was a God-like being, and he was the Son of God, but we are Children of God too, and it's possible to atain that level of being. I know I won't because I don't obey all the rules of my Church, but the way I practice my religion works for me and it makes me feel secure spiritually, I am prepared to accept the consequences for my actions when that time comes.
lol thanks Blur, I am aware of what a Mormon is:)
So does your particular branch of Mormonism follow the multiple wife thing?
and what was your reaction to the guy who was faking Mormon documents a few years ago, and eventually tried to kill those who could expose him?
LoL im not trying to draw you out here or ridicule you, just faiths do interest me, and the church of Mormon isnt one ive had much exposure too.
Ps: my neighbour 2 doors up is an Iman, and a jollier, friendlier chap ive never met I also know two wiccan witches, a Chaos Magician and one of my closest friends trained to be a Rabbii. Multi-Theolgy FTW! makes for great pub chats
However, if you do decide to write it, then be sure to do it under a pseudonym; if you don't, then the nutty Islamic/Christian fundamentalists will converge and cook you on a spit.
Do all atheists think that Jesus was a swindler(he could have been fictitious)? No, so you should probably change your title as well, or you'll be offending atheists and you won't have a rock to hide under.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Originally posted by qotsa Originally posted by Draenor
I don't understand why anyone would want to subscribe to that, I can understand why an uneducated (but schooled) person would believe in evolution, but no belief in a God is something that I cannot fathom.
Faith in an invisible man that nobody has ever seen, heard or spoken to is something I cannot fathom. I know some people claim to have done these things. But we have more scientific proof of ghosts than we do god. Truth is we're all nothing but space dust.
Until I see some REAL scientific proof of the big bang theory instead of a bunch of conjecture..I'll stick with God
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well, I'd probably watch it, 'specially if it was a comedy. Don't think I'd read the book, though. I mean, I've got to read books for school, an' all, and I hate reading multiple books at once.
To all you whining religious people: Woo-hoo, it's a book! Someone disagrees with you, oh no! Why, if they get published, the world will obviously fall to pieces around you! Just kidding, no need to flame. Seriously, though, some people take stuff too seriously. I mean, it's not like it's a personal attack against you, or something.
Originally posted by Kuzzle Well, I'd probably watch it, 'specially if it was a comedy. Don't think I'd read the book, though. I mean, I've got to read books for school, an' all, and I hate reading multiple books at once. To all you whining religious people: Woo-hoo, it's a book! Someone disagrees with you, oh no! Why, if they get published, the world will obviously fall to pieces around you! Just kidding, no need to flame. Seriously, though, some people take stuff too seriously. I mean, it's not like it's a personal attack against you, or something. Oh, and: Go Tamalan! *waves British flag, cheers*
Now, why do you single us out as the whiners? Have you looked at which side is basically starting all of these threads? Heck, we're just responding to the topics. Or, is it non-religious members only? Did I miss that somewhere? We respond and it's us whining...I don't get it. And, actually there have been several personal attacks. Look around for things such as; calling religious people mentally ill, uneducated, brainwashed, having our children taken away for mental abuse, expressing joy at knowing religious people are killed, etc. That's very personal.
Just because there are "documents" and "bibles/books" saying Jesus did exsist..
Doesn't mean he actualy did.
It so EASY to lie when it comes to writting something.
It isn't good enough proof.
^^
And I don't think there ever was a Jesus either myself. I think some old guy wanted attintion and to be praised by all, so he wrote up some crap ( the bible ) and look, people believe it! ( Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
I just hope it doesn't turn out like the DaVinci code, people taking it seriously, and dissing Christians you know? Why cant you pick on some other religion . Good idea for a fictional novel I suppose though....
Originally posted by LilithIshtar You all do realize that...
Just because there are "documents" and "bibles/books" saying Jesus did exsist..
Doesn't mean he actualy did.
It so EASY to lie when it comes to writting something.
It isn't good enough proof.
^^
And I don't think there ever was a Jesus either myself. I think some old guy wanted attintion and to be praised by all, so he wrote up some crap ( the bible ) and look, people believe it! ( Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
I agree in the Bible's fallacy, but I'll have to disagree with you about an old man writing the whole thing, as this has been proven time and time again. The Bible has many many author's. one of which may be an attention whore old man.
Originally posted by LilithIshtar And I don't think there ever was a Jesus either myself. I think some old guy wanted attintion and to be praised by all, so he wrote up some crap ( the bible ) and look, people believe it! ( Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
maybe you missed the part that this is a public forum and no matter what you say, people will disagree...and you're just going to have to live with that
And like Modjoe said, Jesus didn't write the Bible, and the "Bible" is simple the new testament books added onto the old testament books, so uhh, how do you explain that one?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by LilithIshtar You all do realize that...
Just because there are "documents" and "bibles/books" saying Jesus did exsist..
Doesn't mean he actualy did.
It so EASY to lie when it comes to writting something.
It isn't good enough proof.
^^
And I don't think there ever was a Jesus either myself. I think some old guy wanted attintion and to be praised by all, so he wrote up some crap ( the bible ) and look, people believe it! ( Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
You must have a hard time believing in things like science & history - Such empiricism, such a bubble.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Originally posted by Slayerexpert I just hope it doesn't turn out like the DaVinci code, people taking it seriously, and dissing Christians you know? Why cant you pick on some other religion . Good idea for a fictional novel I suppose though....
People picked on christians long before the Da Vinci Code, the book just brought some interesting facts, and some interesting unproved theories to light. Now, suddenly, everyones an "expert" after reading it, or worse, just watching the movie.
As to why people pick on christianity, it is because its the one religion people in the US and Europe see everywhere they go. Pick on the Wiccan in the group you are adressing, and only that one person cares.
Think of religion bashing like a kid with a pin in a field of balloons, he is going to pop the biggest one he sees first.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Originally posted by Tamalan lol thanks Blur, I am aware of what a Mormon is:) So does your particular branch of Mormonism follow the multiple wife thing? and what was your reaction to the guy who was faking Mormon documents a few years ago, and eventually tried to kill those who could expose him? LoL im not trying to draw you out here or ridicule you, just faiths do interest me, and the church of Mormon isnt one ive had much exposure too. Ps: my neighbour 2 doors up is an Iman, and a jollier, friendlier chap ive never met I also know two wiccan witches, a Chaos Magician and one of my closest friends trained to be a Rabbii. Multi-Theolgy FTW! makes for great pub chats
No we don't follow the multiple wife thing. The official church stance is that polygamy was repealed back in the 1800s, so any Mormons should have stopped then. If you notice the people who call themselves Mormons and practice polygamy (multiple wives), their churches are always called "The Reorganized.." or "The Fundamentalist.." . They have to change/add to their name because they know they're not part of the official church.
Never heard about anyone faking Mormon documents, but it seems silly to me, the guy musta been a nutcase, heh.
Obviously no religion is perfect, but I do have to say that whatever you think about the Mormon church, is that they do alot of good. For example, in my city the church actually owns a farm where all the food grown is specifically to help the homeless. I've never heard of another church doing anything like that. I went and picked peaches once, it was fun, lol, but anyways.
You know of course South Park makes fun of Mormons (as they do most religions), but if you really look at it, there's not that much bad they end up saying. They poke fun but they also realize that Mormons try to help people and are family focused. Mormons will try to share their religion, but they aren't out to convert you if you don't want to.
Anyways I'm rambling again, lol.
Regarding The Life of Brian, I didn't actually see it, I saw a few bits of it, like the suicide squad. Atleast I hope that's the movie I'm thinking of, Monty Python stuff. Monty Python's movies are kinda funny, but not exactly my cup of tea.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Any of you ever heard of Mithraism? It is an ancient pagan religion that was prevalent prior to the arriavl of Jesus. I have even read in certified theology books that many think Mithraism was used as the foundation for chirstianity. This is off of Wiki:
According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and Christian scholars but which can account for the similarities without assuming a Christian derivation from Mithraism. He also believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans — a view probably shared by Cumont.[1] Mithraism, in Larson's view, was an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, and was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.
"The resemblances between the two hostile churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity" (Cumont, 193). Like Origen (an early Christian writer and in this respect a peculiarity among the other patristic writers), Mithraism held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions with God, and inhabited a body upon birth. Similar to Pythagorean, Jewish, and Pauline theology, life then becomes the great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, ending in judgment, with the elect being saved. "They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones. . .and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth" (Cumont 191).
Both religions used the rite of baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both the birth of Mithra and the birth of Christ have been celebrated on December 25th, although nowhere does the New Testament claim that Christ was born on this day. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. It has been claimed that both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, though for different reasons, although the evidence that Mithradists practiced weekly worship, any more than any other pagan religion of the time, is lacking. Many have noted that the title of Pope (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have significance in Mithraism.
Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were similar (though Mithraism was more dualistic[2]), including a great and final battle at the end of times. Mithraism's flood at the beginning of history was deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Christ and Mithra were both referred to as the "Logos" (Larson 184), a term meaning the divine "Word" or "Reason" and first used in this sense by the Jewish philosopher Philo in the first-century CE.
When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190).
Although the cult of Mithra rivaled Christianity in Rome, they were among different social classes. Mithra was popular among soldiers and nobles after four centuries of growth. Mithraism had a disadvantage to Christian populism by barring women and emphasizing the elitist nature of the belief (being in the latter respect closer to Gnosticism than Christianity). Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became the patron of Roman armies (Cumont 87). Christians, however, referred to themselves as soldiers of Christ. They venerated Jesus by calling him Light of the World or Son of Righteousness. Christians also claimed their savior's death was marked by a solar eclipse. Sunday became the primary day of worship for Christians, despite observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries.
Mithra's birthday was adopted by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birth of Christ (J. Smith 146). Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female rock, or the petra genetix, conceived by God's lightning (de Riencourt 135). Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi bearing gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock (J. Smith 146). Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, a sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. This was ritualistically removed each year, and he was said to live again. Mithra's triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated during the spring equinox, as during Easter, when the sun rises toward its apogee.
Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra (rock), he carried the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven, as St. Peter is said to have the keys to the gates of Heaven (H. Smith 129). Before returning to heaven, Mithra had his Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, alleged to be the models for the Christian seven sacraments (James 250). It was called mized and in Latin missa, meaning "released". This is the word in later ecclesiastical Latin for "Mass".[3]
Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. (J. Smith 146). Later Christian bishops in Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope (H. Smith 252). Gregory I, in the sixth-century, was the first Christian bishop on record who used the title of himself. Mithraism entered into many doctrines of the Manichean Gnostic sect of Christianity (which was condemned as heretical), and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years (Cumont, Oriental 154)). The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests ("Magi") at the Savior's birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. (Brewster 55).
It is possible, even likely, that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun-god, but which also depicts Christ in a similar way. However, differences such as prognostication by star gazing were regarded as heretical by Christians according to Halakaic sanctions.
Justin Martyr, in a discussion with the Jewish apologist Trypho, wrote: "'And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words? For they contrived that the words of righteousness be quoted also by them. . . . And when I hear, Trypho,' said I, 'that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.'" (Dialogue with Trypho, LXXVIII). Tertullian also demonized Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil.
Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
Fries or onion rings?
As to why people pick on christianity, it is because its the one religion people in the US and Europe see everywhere they go.
Pretty much the impression I got from it, Aelfinn. If Christianity was a foreign 'mystery religion' then people would be more respectful and intrigued by it and so on and so forth. But since it's generally wide spread, one might refer to us as 'masses of sheep'. It's the same basic idea that one = cool and one-thousand = bad for some weird reason (ie. 'the one', 'the chosen one', 'savior - individual - of the world'). The concept's pretty ingrained into our society. Heroes are rare in real life. And as to the one who posted about atheists being 'heroes'...
I'd have to say that I disagree with the term 'hero.' Maybe you meant brave, individualistic and strong - which I may support; it depends on the morals or motives that guide their beliefs. I could also say that they're immoral, selfish and willfully ignorant. But that would be generalizing.
Also stated was the idea that with atheism there is no divine retribution to those who do wrong. If atheism is true, then that is the case. But a devout Christian would not care about retribution but for the one who did wrong to do wrong no more and to live in peace with others. At any rate, I could also argue that because atheists do not believe in divine retribution, most would be strongly prompted to take matters into their own hands. Seeking revenge is, as often as not, contradictory to a progressive philosophy, causing further harm rather than ending it. I suppose in cases where revenge is detrimental, atheists would have to 'suck it up'. As stated above, the only difference I think that a devout Christian would have with an atheist would be that the Christian should not even be minded of revenge and therefore would have nothing to 'suck up' but rather look forward, perhaps, to the wrong-doer's end of ill-deeds so-to-speak. But it's all subjective. It depends on your personal philosophy. All Christians are bound, though, to a specific philosophy - relegate to God vengeance. Forgive and do not rejoice in your enemy's demise. We, ourselves, are no better. We are not heroes and should not think higher of ourselves than those we oppose.
Luke 18:7, Romans 12:19, Proverbs 24:17 (And, yes, I'm aware of verse 18. That's not to say that we should sorrow over our enemies in order that God should heap upon them more destruction. In verse 17 it already warns against evil motives really.) Ok, gotta get workin' again.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Comments
If so can I be in it? And can I slaughter a lamb? PLEEEEASE!!!!
because If those people that you've known truly only believe that the bible is a fictional book of tall tales... then What is it exactly that they believe in? If you dont believe that the bible is true then... I dont even understand how you can believe in the judaic god... Thats why I figure there was some miscommunication between you and your peeps.
Quick question not an insult or anything But how old were you when you asked these questions? If you were a younger teen.. They may have tried to explain it in a simplified form....
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
A lot of them, including some on here can be described that way.
Then again, I see a lot more loudmouths on the atheists' side... And thats the one I generally end up supporting, even if indirectly, to my regret.
As to the original topic before it got sidetracked by this endless flamewar as usual...
My belief has always been that he was in fact a man with a message to spread. Whether he was the son of God, another prophet, or simply another one of the great peacelovers in history is a question that may never be answered.
One thing is for certain as far as I am concerned, whatever and whoever he may have once been, those who followed him were in it for power. Our image of who he was has definately been warped to solidify the church's power, how far? once again impossible to tell, it was too long ago.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
The bible isn't meant to be taken as literal fact. When it says "God did this in one day", it doesn't necessarily mean it happened in 24 of our hours. One major example within the Book of Mormon (essentially another testament of Jesus Christ, it's one of the main books used by Mormons), in one of the early stories it talks about two groups of people. One group of people followed the teachings of God, and the other group of people was 'wicked' and 'bad' and stuff like that. Now in the story, it says that God punished the wicked people by giving them a dark skin. People immediately jump up and say "Omg, that just said anyone with dark skin is a sinner!" but again it's an interpretation thing. The word used is "skin" but everyone takes it too literally. When it said skin it didn't mean your physical skin, but your visage. The word it means is actually "aura". God gave them a dark "aura" to punish them for being wicked. Not really the point but a good example of how literal and interpretation are two very dfiferent things.
The bible is supposed to be a guideline on how to live your life, it's supposed to teach you lessons that help you grow and prosper. Part of it is to make you think and find your own answers to the questions. That way you will actually learn the nature of your personal relationship with the universe, as opposed to learning the expected answer like it'll be a test at the end of your life.
Tamalan I singled you out because you singled me out. You were the one who first suggested that I was being aggressive and 'plumbing moral depths'. Once again I was simply responding in kind.
You have also conflicted yourself in your other posts. You say "aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek?" like it is a literal interpretation, and then saying that you were taught that the bible is not literal and more of a book of metaphors.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that you can't defend yourself if someone comes after you. 'Turning the other cheek' is a metaphor that's open to each and everyone's own interpretation. To me that simply means if someone's a jerk to you, don't harbor a grudge. Also, turn the other cheek would imply that you don't leave the same cheek to be injured again, wouldn't it?
The whole 'turn the other cheek' and 'peace and love' arguments are frequently used by non-christians in an attempt to stop any retaliation which they know is deserved. You can't start punching a christian and then expect him not to defend himself because of "love thy neighbour" and the like.
As far as 'double standards', I can assure you that atheists have them as well. Case in point, is the way that some atheists will claim a christian is trying to 'force their beliefs on him', and then turn around and try to refute/undermine christianity, in effect trying to 'force his beliefs on them'.
For the record, I'm a Mormon (one type of Christian), and I have different beliefs than many other christians. Infact I have different beliefs than some Mormons. Some of us Mormons (I can't say all cause I don't know for sure) believe that Christ wasn't actually a part of God, though he was a God-like being, and he was the Son of God, but we are Children of God too, and it's possible to atain that level of being. I know I won't because I don't obey all the rules of my Church, but the way I practice my religion works for me and it makes me feel secure spiritually, I am prepared to accept the consequences for my actions when that time comes.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Nope, im not saying these people didnt believe in Jesus, God etc, but that the examples in the bible were metaphors/parables, stories told by Jesus etc to guide people to leading a better life. Both these people believed in evolution, although it was an evolution 'overseen/created' by God.
Must be a difference between their faith and yours.
And to answer your question, the C of Vicar taught me when i was 11-13, the Deaconess I knew between the age of 16 - early 20's. Enjoyed many a glass of wine and a good debate with her ( lol not when i was 16, but in the latter years )
That's not actually double standards, that's 'different interpretations'. The fact that people can disagree on these things is good for their spirituality because it means they'll actually think about the issues.
If I ever convert, I'm definately converting to Asatru, that's a cool religion for sure.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
That's not actually double standards, that's 'different interpretations'. The fact that people can disagree on these things is good for their spirituality because it means they'll actually think about the issues.
If I ever convert, I'm definately converting to Asatru, that's a cool religion for sure.
Norse Heathenism... lol pretty cool... hell go for it, sounds like fun
There is evidence that Jesus did in fact exist, including many Roman text and documents.
As for the Old Testament being influenced by "Egyptian" mythology. Perhaps, but a lot of the religous stories that influence date all the way back to the time of the Ancient Sumerians and Akkadians, and the many of the Egyptian gods are simply borrowed from other cultures that existed before them as well.
I'm not sure of the exact quote, but a man once said, "Don't let the pratice ruin the belief", which simply means that its completely asinine to critisize an entire religion for what SOME choose to use it for. Of course there will always be corrupt men who are able to inspire and lead a great number of people to do horrible acts in the name of religion, just as there will be men who can do it under the believe of racial superioty or cultural beliefs. Honestly, your examples are stupid. I can't put it more elegantly then that. Yeah, Christians killed native americans in the past. Guess what? Many of them also believed that if God "choose" your soul at the beginning of time to ascend into his kingdom, then it didn't really matter what you did on earth. Rape, pillage, and kill.
I don't know what point you're trying to make by bringing up such obvious contradictions to the BASIC FOUNDATIONS of the entire religon, but it certainly didn't work.
Is the view nice from that fence your sitting on?
Nothing wrong with being objective.
lol thanks Blur, I am aware of what a Mormon is:)
So does your particular branch of Mormonism follow the multiple wife thing?
and what was your reaction to the guy who was faking Mormon documents a few years ago, and eventually tried to kill those who could expose him?
LoL im not trying to draw you out here or ridicule you, just faiths do interest me, and the church of Mormon isnt one ive had much exposure too.
Ps: my neighbour 2 doors up is an Iman, and a jollier, friendlier chap ive never met I also know two wiccan witches, a Chaos Magician and one of my closest friends trained to be a Rabbii. Multi-Theolgy FTW! makes for great pub chats
Eh, not too shabby I guess.
However, if you do decide to write it, then be sure to do it under a pseudonym; if you don't, then the nutty Islamic/Christian fundamentalists will converge and cook you on a spit.
Do all atheists think that Jesus was a swindler(he could have been fictitious)? No, so you should probably change your title as well, or you'll be offending atheists and you won't have a rock to hide under.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Slightly back on track, but an aside nonetheless...
The town I came from was one of the few that banned ' The Life of Brian' from being shown at the cinema.
My brother and I travelled out of town to go see it, and still to this day it is my favourite of all the Monty Python films
Were any of you guys greatly offended by that film?
Until I see some REAL scientific proof of the big bang theory instead of a bunch of conjecture..I'll stick with God
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Hey jan, don't fret: ConverseSC only comes to this forum to troll/flame. The mods never do anything about it though.
I'd quickly edit your post before that *****bag reports you and gets you warned/banned.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Well, I'd probably watch it, 'specially if it was a comedy. Don't think I'd read the book, though. I mean, I've got to read books for school, an' all, and I hate reading multiple books at once.
To all you whining religious people: Woo-hoo, it's a book! Someone disagrees with you, oh no! Why, if they get published, the world will obviously fall to pieces around you! Just kidding, no need to flame. Seriously, though, some people take stuff too seriously. I mean, it's not like it's a personal attack against you, or something.
Oh, and: Go Tamalan! *waves British flag, cheers*
Just because there are "documents" and "bibles/books" saying Jesus did exsist..
Doesn't mean he actualy did.
It so EASY to lie when it comes to writting something.
It isn't good enough proof.
^^
And I don't think there ever was a Jesus either myself. I think some old guy wanted attintion and to be praised by all, so he wrote up some crap ( the bible ) and look, people believe it! ( Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
maybe you missed the part that this is a public forum and no matter what you say, people will disagree...and you're just going to have to live with that
And like Modjoe said, Jesus didn't write the Bible, and the "Bible" is simple the new testament books added onto the old testament books, so uhh, how do you explain that one?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
People picked on christians long before the Da Vinci Code, the book just brought some interesting facts, and some interesting unproved theories to light. Now, suddenly, everyones an "expert" after reading it, or worse, just watching the movie.
As to why people pick on christianity, it is because its the one religion people in the US and Europe see everywhere they go. Pick on the Wiccan in the group you are adressing, and only that one person cares.
Think of religion bashing like a kid with a pin in a field of balloons, he is going to pop the biggest one he sees first.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
No we don't follow the multiple wife thing. The official church stance is that polygamy was repealed back in the 1800s, so any Mormons should have stopped then. If you notice the people who call themselves Mormons and practice polygamy (multiple wives), their churches are always called "The Reorganized.." or "The Fundamentalist.." . They have to change/add to their name because they know they're not part of the official church.
Never heard about anyone faking Mormon documents, but it seems silly to me, the guy musta been a nutcase, heh.
Obviously no religion is perfect, but I do have to say that whatever you think about the Mormon church, is that they do alot of good. For example, in my city the church actually owns a farm where all the food grown is specifically to help the homeless. I've never heard of another church doing anything like that. I went and picked peaches once, it was fun, lol, but anyways.
You know of course South Park makes fun of Mormons (as they do most religions), but if you really look at it, there's not that much bad they end up saying. They poke fun but they also realize that Mormons try to help people and are family focused. Mormons will try to share their religion, but they aren't out to convert you if you don't want to.
Anyways I'm rambling again, lol.
Regarding The Life of Brian, I didn't actually see it, I saw a few bits of it, like the suicide squad. Atleast I hope that's the movie I'm thinking of, Monty Python stuff. Monty Python's movies are kinda funny, but not exactly my cup of tea.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Good topic...
Any of you ever heard of Mithraism? It is an ancient pagan religion that was prevalent prior to the arriavl of Jesus. I have even read in certified theology books that many think Mithraism was used as the foundation for chirstianity. This is off of Wiki:
Similarities to Christianity
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and Christian scholars but which can account for the similarities without assuming a Christian derivation from Mithraism. He also believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans — a view probably shared by Cumont.[1] Mithraism, in Larson's view, was an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, and was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.
"The resemblances between the two hostile churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity" (Cumont, 193). Like Origen (an early Christian writer and in this respect a peculiarity among the other patristic writers), Mithraism held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions with God, and inhabited a body upon birth. Similar to Pythagorean, Jewish, and Pauline theology, life then becomes the great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, ending in judgment, with the elect being saved. "They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones. . .and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth" (Cumont 191).
Both religions used the rite of baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both the birth of Mithra and the birth of Christ have been celebrated on December 25th, although nowhere does the New Testament claim that Christ was born on this day. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. It has been claimed that both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, though for different reasons, although the evidence that Mithradists practiced weekly worship, any more than any other pagan religion of the time, is lacking. Many have noted that the title of Pope (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have significance in Mithraism.
Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were similar (though Mithraism was more dualistic[2]), including a great and final battle at the end of times. Mithraism's flood at the beginning of history was deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Christ and Mithra were both referred to as the "Logos" (Larson 184), a term meaning the divine "Word" or "Reason" and first used in this sense by the Jewish philosopher Philo in the first-century CE.
Although the cult of Mithra rivaled Christianity in Rome, they were among different social classes. Mithra was popular among soldiers and nobles after four centuries of growth. Mithraism had a disadvantage to Christian populism by barring women and emphasizing the elitist nature of the belief (being in the latter respect closer to Gnosticism than Christianity). Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became the patron of Roman armies (Cumont 87). Christians, however, referred to themselves as soldiers of Christ. They venerated Jesus by calling him Light of the World or Son of Righteousness. Christians also claimed their savior's death was marked by a solar eclipse. Sunday became the primary day of worship for Christians, despite observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries.
Mithra's birthday was adopted by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birth of Christ (J. Smith 146). Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female rock, or the petra genetix, conceived by God's lightning (de Riencourt 135). Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi bearing gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock (J. Smith 146). Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, a sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. This was ritualistically removed each year, and he was said to live again. Mithra's triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated during the spring equinox, as during Easter, when the sun rises toward its apogee.
Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra (rock), he carried the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven, as St. Peter is said to have the keys to the gates of Heaven (H. Smith 129). Before returning to heaven, Mithra had his Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, alleged to be the models for the Christian seven sacraments (James 250). It was called mized and in Latin missa, meaning "released". This is the word in later ecclesiastical Latin for "Mass".[3]
Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. (J. Smith 146). Later Christian bishops in Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope (H. Smith 252). Gregory I, in the sixth-century, was the first Christian bishop on record who used the title of himself. Mithraism entered into many doctrines of the Manichean Gnostic sect of Christianity (which was condemned as heretical), and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years (Cumont, Oriental 154)). The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests ("Magi") at the Savior's birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. (Brewster 55).
It is possible, even likely, that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun-god, but which also depicts Christ in a similar way. However, differences such as prognostication by star gazing were regarded as heretical by Christians according to Halakaic sanctions.
Justin Martyr, in a discussion with the Jewish apologist Trypho, wrote: "'And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words? For they contrived that the words of righteousness be quoted also by them. . . . And when I hear, Trypho,' said I, 'that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.'" (Dialogue with Trypho, LXXVIII). Tertullian also demonized Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil.
Btw, you can eat me if you disagree. I don't care what you think. ^^ )
Fries or onion rings?
As to why people pick on christianity, it is because its the one religion people in the US and Europe see everywhere they go.
Pretty much the impression I got from it, Aelfinn. If Christianity was a foreign 'mystery religion' then people would be more respectful and intrigued by it and so on and so forth. But since it's generally wide spread, one might refer to us as 'masses of sheep'. It's the same basic idea that one = cool and one-thousand = bad for some weird reason (ie. 'the one', 'the chosen one', 'savior - individual - of the world'). The concept's pretty ingrained into our society. Heroes are rare in real life. And as to the one who posted about atheists being 'heroes'...
I'd have to say that I disagree with the term 'hero.' Maybe you meant brave, individualistic and strong - which I may support; it depends on the morals or motives that guide their beliefs. I could also say that they're immoral, selfish and willfully ignorant. But that would be generalizing.
Also stated was the idea that with atheism there is no divine retribution to those who do wrong. If atheism is true, then that is the case. But a devout Christian would not care about retribution but for the one who did wrong to do wrong no more and to live in peace with others. At any rate, I could also argue that because atheists do not believe in divine retribution, most would be strongly prompted to take matters into their own hands. Seeking revenge is, as often as not, contradictory to a progressive philosophy, causing further harm rather than ending it. I suppose in cases where revenge is detrimental, atheists would have to 'suck it up'. As stated above, the only difference I think that a devout Christian would have with an atheist would be that the Christian should not even be minded of revenge and therefore would have nothing to 'suck up' but rather look forward, perhaps, to the wrong-doer's end of ill-deeds so-to-speak. But it's all subjective. It depends on your personal philosophy. All Christians are bound, though, to a specific philosophy - relegate to God vengeance. Forgive and do not rejoice in your enemy's demise. We, ourselves, are no better. We are not heroes and should not think higher of ourselves than those we oppose.
Luke 18:7, Romans 12:19, Proverbs 24:17 (And, yes, I'm aware of verse 18. That's not to say that we should sorrow over our enemies in order that God should heap upon them more destruction. In verse 17 it already warns against evil motives really.) Ok, gotta get workin' again.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain