Why the Judeo-Islami-Christian myth?

[Some Friggin Guy]

I've been trying to figure this out lately.

Religions have existed throughout history, of course, though we now can safely refer to them as myths. I've studied mythology and literature throughout high-school and college and continue to do so today because I find them fascinating.

Look at the Greco-Roman pantheonic myths. These stories were interesting, clever, and through provoking. They dealt with morality, but also they were entertaining. They showed humanity as the flawed creation of flawed beings and we were trying to make it in the world.

The Norse myths dealt with the interpersonal relations fo their pantheon. It didn't have as much to to with morality, though that was certainly there, but it dealt with how their gods interacted. It was almost a melodrama. The Egytian myths were similar.

Then we come to the monotheistic judeo-islami-christian myths. These are dry stories, not well written, and blatantly self-contradictory. There's one god, who apparently has a severe multiple personality problem since one minute he's all loving and the next he's casting down rains of fire upon a city that didn't bow down low enough. His arch-enemy isn't even a fellow god! he's a "fallen angel". To me, that's like Batman's archenemy is suddenly Robin. It's boring and contrived.

Yet, for some reason, this is the collection of myths that has stuck around.

The only reason I can think of is that people decided that, since they are so boring and unoriginal, they had to be the truth.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[Iacchus]

Here's a different take on the Christian Church if you like. Please read chapter 1 (http://www.dionysus.org/index.html?x0101.html) ...

[Some Friggin Guy]

It's a very interesting take, I will admit. The only flaw I could find was that it states that the christian curch began in Greece. As I recall my history (never my best subject, I admit) christianity sprang out of Rome.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
It's a very interesting take, I will admit. The only flaw I could find was that it states that the christian curch began in Greece. As I recall my history (never my best subject, I admit) christianity sprang out of Rome. No, it actually began with the Bizantine Empire, with its capitol, Bizantium (now called Istanbul), partly between Turkey and Greece.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Fair enough. As I said, history was not my best subject.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, it actually began with the Bizantine Empire, with its capitol, Bizantium (now called Istanbul), partly between Turkey and Greece. While it wasn't until later that the Roman emperor Constantine conquered Bizantium and renamed it Constantinople, before adopting Christianity as the official religion of the Roman State.

Sorry, I should have mentioned this before. :)

[Some Friggin Guy]

Hey! I wasn't as bad in history as I thought! I knew about Constantine and Constantinople. I just had the timeline screwy, thinking that Constantine brought christianity with him. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Hey! I wasn't as bad in history as I thought! I knew about Constantine and Constantinople. I just had the timeline screwy, thinking that Constantine brought christianity with him. Thanks for clearing it up. Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. That's why I brought it up. ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Then we come to the monotheistic judeo-islami-christian myths. These are dry stories, not well written, and blatantly self-contradictory.
Actually, the Old and New Testaments are written with a variety of literary elements, most of which are poetic.

The bible appears poorly written because the bible we have today is incomplete. For instance, there are parts of the bible that mention Giants. Any reasonable person would ask "What the f*dge?". Apparently, a few of the forbidden books of the bible include what is called "The Books of Enoch (http://demons.monstrous.com/the_books_of_enoch.htm)". In those books, there is a section which describes angels who lust after earthly women, the angels "go unto" the women, the women give birth to giants. Another mystery is the origin of Cain's wife. Cains wife is a mystery to modern Christians, but is fully explained in the Lost Books of the Bible. During the "Canonization" of the Bible (which was the process of choosing which individual books should be included or left out of the bible), many books which were deemed too gnostic were left out. One such book was an extension of Revelation, it was a book called "The Apocalyse (of John)", it described how Hell was not a lake of fire, but instead Hell meant "from God" (and Heaven was "closeness to God"), this book described how Hell was not eternal, all people would eventually get out of Hell.

I saw all this on the History Channel last night. If anyone notices my information is inaccurate, feel free to correct me.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Yahweh, as far as I can recall from my bible studies in my mythology and folklore classes, your information is fairly accurate. The main problem is that even with the missing texts which "fill in the blanks" as it were, the bible is still poorly written as a myth.

If we take the idea of a monotheistic myth, the main character should be constant, or at least have constant character development. The main character in the bible does not. In essence, the writers of the stories (tellers originally) took the idea of a pantheon and condensed it into a single character, thus making a blatantly psychotic god.

Take this parallel:

In the bible, god gives the first man and woman free will, but tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They are seduced by the talking snake to do so, then god gets torqued at them for doing it, when it was his fault for giving them that freewill.

Compare that to the Greek myth of Prometheus. Zeus, the creator, does not want mankind to have a specific knowledge, so he does not give them the ability to get it. This is a fairly solid character trait. A third party (Prometheus) then actively gives mankind that knowledge, rather than simply tempting them. Prometheus is then punished for his transgression. This establishes that Zeus knew how to keep from humanity what he wanted out of their grasp, yet when it was given to them, punishment was applied to the guilty party. No blunder on the deity's part, no misplaced punishment for the transgression. It shows a consistancy of character.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I've been trying to figure this out lately.

Religions have existed throughout history, of course, though we now can safely refer to them as myths. I've studied mythology and literature throughout high-school and college and continue to do so today because I find them fascinating.

Look at the Greco-Roman pantheonic myths. These stories were interesting, clever, and through provoking. They dealt with morality, but also they were entertaining. They showed humanity as the flawed creation of flawed beings and we were trying to make it in the world.

The Norse myths dealt with the interpersonal relations fo their pantheon. It didn't have as much to to with morality, though that was certainly there, but it dealt with how their gods interacted. It was almost a melodrama. The Egytian myths were similar.

Then we come to the monotheistic judeo-islami-christian myths. These are dry stories, not well written, and blatantly self-contradictory. There's one god, who apparently has a severe multiple personality problem since one minute he's all loving and the next he's casting down rains of fire upon a city that didn't bow down low enough. His arch-enemy isn't even a fellow god! he's a "fallen angel". To me, that's like Batman's archenemy is suddenly Robin. It's boring and contrived.

Yet, for some reason, this is the collection of myths that has stuck around.

The only reason I can think of is that people decided that, since they are so boring and unoriginal, they had to be the truth.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Constantine and the Roman Empire he ruled.

[Zero]

I'm going with the obvious: Christianity speaks in a language of hate, fear, and violence. The place where the Jews went wrong was in not allowing conquered people to convert. Christianity licked the problem, and the combination of the sword and open arms led to the Jesus cult spreading into a world power.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


If we take the idea of a monotheistic myth, the main character should be constant, or at least have constant character development. The main character in the bible does not. In essence, the writers of the stories (tellers originally) took the idea of a pantheon and condensed it into a single character, thus making a blatantly psychotic god. Ever consider the fact there is only one sun in the sky, and this is what monotheism is "loosely" based upon? Indeed, the first monotheistic religion was established in Egypt (about the time of the Hebrew slaves I believe?), and guess who the original worshippers of the sun god Ra were? The Egyptians of course.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm going with the obvious: Christianity speaks in a language of hate, fear, and violence. The place where the Jews went wrong was in not allowing conquered people to convert. Christianity licked the problem, and the combination of the sword and open arms led to the Jesus cult spreading into a world power. Yes, despite its peaceful origins.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, despite its peaceful origins. Have you ever read a book? What peaceful begining?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zero
Have you ever read a book? What peaceful begining? Is this all you ever do is insinuate and try to fan the flames?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is this all you ever do is insinuate and try to fan the flames? Read a Bible. Read about how the Jews slaughtered other tribes, and sometimes took their women as slaves. Read a history book, and learn about the long history of wars in the name of religion. What peaceful origins? The Abrahamic religions are all based in violence, in a religious justification for taking other people's lands and enslaving people.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zero
Read a Bible. Read about how the Jews slaughtered other tribes, and sometimes took their women as slaves. Read a history book, and learn about the long history of wars in the name of religion. What peaceful origins? The Abrahamic religions are all based in violence, in a religious justification for taking other people's lands and enslaving people. He was called the "Prince of Peace" wasn't He? This was "His message" wasn't it? In spite of the fact of all the violence surrounding "the myth."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus
He was called the "Prince of Peace" wasn't He? This was "His message" wasn't it? In spite of the fact of all the violence surrounding "the myth." You are basing your entire argument on three words? (have you actually read the Bible, or are you basing your argument on a Hallmark card?)

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Then we come to the monotheistic judeo-islami-christian myths. These are dry stories, not well written, and blatantly self-contradictory. There's one god, who apparently has a severe multiple personality problem since one minute he's all loving and the next he's casting down rains of fire upon a city that didn't bow down low enough. Multiple Personaility Disorder in gods tends to be a function of there story changing to fit the people. If I recall my history correctly, Yahweh was original part of a pantheon (which included his wife) and many of the stories in the bibles were parables about how to live your life.

When the first wave of greeks came through the region (the Sellucids? ) the philosiphical tradition takes root in the religion. A more literal interpretation of the bible becomes common, and people wonder more about life after death, and the concept of reward in the afterlife becomes part of the Judean beliefs.

So the adaptions of the myths probably has something to do with the inconsistencies, and also something to do with the longevity.

Walt

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever consider the fact there is only one sun in the sky, and this is what monotheism is "loosely" based upon? Indeed, the first monotheistic religion was established in Egypt (about the time of the Hebrew slaves I believe?), and guess who the original worshippers of the sun god Ra were? The Egyptians of course. The sun god Ra (conflated with another sun god, Amon, if I remember correctly) was a member of a pantheon. The monotheistic religion to which you refer centered around Aten, the sun disk, and was manufactured by Akhenaten. I don't think there is much evidence as to how well Akhenaten's notions were received by the surprised populace, except that they were dropped in a hurry after his death and all references to his name were gouged out of inscriptions. His heir, Tutankhaten, underwent a rapid name change to Tutankhamon at about the same time. So although Aten worship is the first example of monotheism we know of, it was hardly successful.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wayrad
The sun god Ra (conflated with another sun god, Amon, if I remember correctly) was a member of a pantheon. The monotheistic religion to which you refer centered around Aten, the sun disk, and was manufactured by Akhenaten. I don't think there is much evidence as to how well Akhenaten's notions were received by the surprised populace, except that they were dropped in a hurry after his death and all references to his name were gouged out of inscriptions. His heir, Tutankhaten, underwent a rapid name change to Tutankhamon at about the same time. So although Aten worship is the first example of monotheism we know of, it was hardly successful. Well I never claimed to be a major history buff, but when I do look things up I try to get my facts straight. So, where were the Hebrews at this time? Is it possible their God is related to this early Egyptian god? Seems like I heard something on the Discovery Channel I believe? of the possibility of this being the source of their God?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zero
You are basing your entire argument on three words? (have you actually read the Bible, or are you basing your argument on a Hallmark card?) Yes, there were a lot of unsavory things occurring in the Bible, but this was a sign of the times. So what?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, there were a lot of unsavory things occurring in the Bible, but this was a sign of the times. So what? So, that sort of disputes your claim about the basis of the religions being peaceful, doesn't it?

(For someone who "never claimed to be a major history buff", you do seem to make a lot of claims as though you know what you are talking about)

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well I never claimed to be a major history buff, but when I do look things up I try to get my facts straight. So, where were the Hebrews at this time? Is it possible their God is related to this early Egyptian god? Seems like I heard something on the Discovery Channel I believe? of the possibility of this being the source of their God? As far as I know, many Bible scholars seem to think the biblical Pharaoh is Ramesses the Great (Ramesses II). According to the reign dates given at http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm, he didn't reach the throne until some 55 years after Akhenaten's memory had been expunged and the worship of the Egyptian pantheon restored.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wayrad
As far as I know, many Bible scholars seem to think the biblical Pharaoh is Ramesses the Great (Ramesses II). According to the reign dates given at http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm, he didn't reach the throne until some 55 years after Akhenaten's memory had been expunged and the worship of the Egyptian pantheon restored. Are you speaking of the Pharoah which had the run in with Moses? If so, then the Hebrews would have already lived in Egypt several hundred years prior to that.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you speaking of the Pharoah which had the run in with Moses? If so, then the Hebrews would have already lived in Egypt several hundred years prior to that. What is your evidence? I haven't seen anything that placed them earlier than Seti (same dynasty as Ramesses).

edited to add: Of course the whole business is rather complicated by the fact that the Egypt captivity, although it figures prominently in the Bible, seems to have made no impact whatsoever on Egyptian records. In fact, it might never have happened. You would think all those plagues and things would have attracted a bit more notice.:D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
He was called the "Prince of Peace" wasn't He? This was "His message" wasn't it? In spite of the fact of all the violence surrounding "the myth."


Prince of peace? Let us look at "His message"

:( Jesus encouraged the owning and beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke 12:47)

:( Loving and respecting your parents? “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

:( Peace?? "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

:( (Matthew 10:34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."


:( (Luke 22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

:( "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

:( "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42)

:( Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

What he though of the Poor.

:( Luke 19
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Just a few examples and not really what a Prince of peace would sound like.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wayrad
What is your evidence? I haven't seen anything that placed them earlier than Seti (same dynasty as Ramesses).

edited to add: Of course the whole business is rather complicated by the fact that the Egypt captivity, although it figures prominently in the Bible, seems to have made no impact whatsoever on Egyptian records. In fact, it might never have happened. You would think all those plagues and things would have attracted a bit more notice.:D All I'm asking is which Pharoah is the Bible referring to? Is it the one which had the "alledged" run in with Moses?

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All I'm asking is which Pharoah is the Bible referring to? Is it the one which had the "alledged" run in with Moses? You mean, was Ramesses II the one Moses had the run-in with? A lot of people have assumed so, but he isn't named in the Bible. The idea seems to be based on interpretation of some Bible verses, especially the mention of the pharaoh building a city with a name that sounded a bit like Ramesses. He appears to have been a pharaoh of strongly marked personality, who was fond of building monuments to himself. Unfortunately the identification can't be confirmed.

[Christian]

And still the question goes unanswered. Why would Christianity be the most powerful force in human history and still today the most relevant? [sarcasm on] It must be pure luck[sarcasm off]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Christian
And still the question goes unanswered. Why would Christianity be the most powerful force in human history and still today the most relevant? [sarcasm on] It must be pure luck[sarcasm off] Hmmm...because hate, self-loathing, and the urge to control other people never goes out of style?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Christian
And still the question goes unanswered. Why would Christianity be the most powerful force in human history and still today the most relevant? [sarcasm on] It must be pure luck[sarcasm off]

Hello my friend.
Such would be a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.

[Christian]

Zero wrote:
Hmmm...because hate, self-loathing, and the urge to control other people never goes out of style?

Which shows the Bible is right on target about all human nature.

Pahansiri wrote:
Hello my friend.
Such would be a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.

Hello Pahansiri, nice to talk to you again. How so? I think certain statistics would prove this to be the case. (e.g most published book in history, most widespread message, most translated book of all times, the most powerful nation in the world with the most adherents, the largest religion today, etc.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Christian
Zero wrote:
Hmmm...because hate, self-loathing, and the urge to control other people never goes out of style?

Which shows the Bible is right on target about all human nature.

Pahansiri wrote:
Hello my friend.
Such would be a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.

Hello Pahansiri, nice to talk to you again. How so? I think certain statistics would prove this to be the case. (e.g most published book in history, most widespread message, most translated book of all times, the most powerful nation in the world with the most adherents, the largest religion today, etc.) The Bible isn't right on about much, and certainly not more accurate than any other book of fairy tales. The success of Christianity can be linked to its violent nature, its ability to change meaning to suit nearly anybody, and the same old 'we believers are better than you heathens' nonsense that drives other harmful but popular ideologies like racism and college football fans.

[Christian]

Zero wrote:
The Bible isn't right on about much, and certainly not more accurate than any other book of fairy tales. The success of Christianity can be linked to its violent nature, its ability to change meaning to suit nearly anybody, and the same old 'we believers are better than you heathens' nonsense that drives other harmful but popular ideologies like racism and college football fans.

But wouldn't this argument be true for any other violent natured, with the ability to change meaning to suit nearly anybody, and the same old 'we believers are better than you heathens' nonsense that drives other harmful but popular ideologies like racism and college football fans.

Why would this one be the most successful? One had to be?


And can you show the Christianity per se is the cause of the harmfulness or is it human nature and anything it touches?

The question remains unanswered.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Christian


But wouldn't this argument be true for any other violent natured, with the ability to change meaning to suit nearly anybody, and the same old 'we believers are better than you heathens' nonsense that drives other harmful but popular ideologies like racism and college football fans.

Why would this one be the most successful? One had to be?


And can you show the Christianity per se is the cause of the harmfulness or is it human nature and anything it touches?

The question remains unanswered. [/B]Well, the question is answered for me...the Roman Empire ruled 'the world' and spread the Abrahamic disease all over. Then Europeans came to America, and murdered and converted people as they went. The success is based on violence...and the religion is too. There are few redeeming values among the Abrahamic cults.

If you choose to blame human nature, blame the humans who wrote the "holy" books, since they are the ones who included the calls to violence.

[Christian]

Zero wrote:
Well, the question is answered for me

I see.

the Roman Empire ruled 'the world' and spread the Abrahamic disease all over. Then Europeans came to America, and murdered and converted people as they went. The success is based on violence...and the religion is too. There are few redeeming values among the Abrahamic cults.

If it has this few redeeming values, then what does it say about the millions of people who are Christians, is this your theme?

If you choose to blame human nature, blame the humans who wrote the "holy" books, since they are the ones who included the calls to violence.

I choose to blame human nature because this is the scientific evidence before us to this day.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Christian

If it has this few redeeming values, then what does it say about the millions of people who are Christians, is this your theme?



I choose to blame human nature because this is the scientific evidence before us to this day. I think people are basically 'good'(your definition may differ from mine), and since Christianity is so adaptable, I don't think people are much affected by it either way. Good people will do good, whatever faith(or lack thereof) they claim, and slimeballs will be slimeballs even if they go to church 50 times a day.

Religion itself, however, is something that I feel acts to the ultimate detriment of human endeavor.

[Ladewig]

Zero-
Christianity licked the problem, and the combination of the sword and open arms led to the Jesus cult spreading into a world power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iacchus-
Yes, despite its peaceful origins.

I do not consider the Old Testament as describing the "peaceful origins" of Christianity.
Irregardless, [sic] one cannot deny that the sword, or the concept of "convert or die," played an immense role in the spreading the message of love.

Some Friggin Guy-
In the bible, god gives the first man and woman free will, but tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They are seduced by the talking snake to do so, then god gets torqued at them for doing it, when it was his fault for giving them that freewill.

Don't forget that Adam and Eve, beings merely hours old with no understanding of authority, had no idea that it was important to follow God's instructions. And after God gave them the most important instructions they could ever receive, God goes off and does something else out of earshot of the special tree. Then God acts surprised when they go and eat the fruit - which God said would kill them even though it didn't kill them.

If you put a two-year-old in a room and say, "I am going to leave the room, but you may play with anything in the room except those matches on the floor," then you have to be a bit of an idiot to be surprised when the room catches fire.

-----------------------------------------

Christanity's rise was also helped by its usurping aspects of of more primative religions it encountered.

"So you folks worship a spirit that lives in this copse? Well, what a co-incidence, we consider this place holy as well and we are going to build a cathedral right on this very spot. OK, boys, go get the axes."

"So, your religion involves a fertility rite with rabbits and eggs? Well, sit down and let me tell you about Easter. Actually, there is a funny story about how that religious celebration got its name."

[Some Friggin Guy]

Don't forget that Adam and Eve, beings merely hours old with no understanding of authority, had no idea that it was important to follow God's instructions. And after God gave them the most important instructions they could ever receive, God goes off and does something else out of earshot of the special tree. Then God acts surprised when they go and eat the fruit - which God said would kill them even though it didn't kill them.

So, we have a god who lies without remorse and doesn't have a basic understanding of logical reactions.

This still doesn't answer my question, but it does pretty well illustrate the fact that the followers of the judeo-islami-christian religions are worshiping a deity with severe mental illness.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


So, we have a god who lies without remorse and doesn't have a basic understanding of logical reactions.

This still doesn't answer my question, but it does pretty well illustrate the fact that the followers of the judeo-islami-christian religions are worshiping a deity with severe mental illness. Doesn't that make their deity just about perfect? The whole "MPD" thing going on explains how this religion can spread from person to person, in that there is a different face of 'god' for each person looking.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Zero
Doesn't that make their deity just about perfect? The whole "MPD" thing going on explains how this religion can spread from person to person, in that there is a different face of 'god' for each person looking.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how people could willingly, blindly follow the worship of a blatant psychotic.

Of course, I wasn't in Jonestown or with the Branch Davidians, either.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how people could willingly, blindly follow the worship of a blatant psychotic.

Of course, I wasn't in Jonestown or with the Branch Davidians, either. People like assurance...and no one is more sure of himself than a psychopath.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Zero
People like assurance...and no one is more sure of himself than a psychopath.

And yet, I can't get people to worship ME.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


And yet, I can't get people to worship ME. Sounds like a personal problem to me...

[Joshua's Gen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is this all you ever do is insinuate and try to fan the flames?

I think the clear answer to that would be YES, LOL

As he's obviously ignorant in his knowledge on the origins of Christianity.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen


I think the clear answer to that would be YES, LOL

As he's obviously ignorant in his knowledge on the origins of Christianity. Prove it, new troll...

[Joshua's Gen]

SO wait, let me get this straight.

The man with the big stick and lacking knowledge of history, fanning flames wherever he goes - calls ME the troll?

Longetivity of membership has ZERO to do with troll status, IMO. ;)

You would do good to show me the bloody commands of war Jesus, Peter, and Paul called for in their epistles and gospels.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen
SO wait, let me get this straight.

The man with the big stick and lacking knowledge of history, fanning flames wherever he goes - calls ME the troll?

Longetivity of membership has ZERO to do with troll status, IMO. ;)

You would do good to show me the bloody commands of war Jesus, Peter, and Paul called for in their epistles and gospels. Wow, 3 posts, 2 of them attacking me...even odds that you are someone who already has at least one name registered on this board. My 'troll radar' is flashing.

Where do I lack knowledge of history? Specifically? Especially when it comes to Biblical history?

Are you one of those 'pick and choose' psuedo-Christians who believes that the Old Testament doesn't count, except when it does?

[Joshua's Gen]

Attacking? I've stated my opinion you're ignorant in your knowledge of the origins of Christianity.

You came off stating Christianity speaks in a language of hate, fear, and violence

I would like some backing up to be had for that comment.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen
Attacking? I've stated my opinion you're ignorant in your knowledge of the origins of Christianity.

You came off stating

I would like some backing up to be had for that comment. *yawn*

OK, read THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. I likes the genocide parts the best, and the 'happy is he who dashes the children against the rocks' part....:D

Even the 'kinder, gentler' Jesus stories still promise eternal suffering for those who don't join the cult. Combine the OT and NT, and you have a recipe for violence, hate, and fear.

And again, you can blame it on the authors, and the group that collected the Bible, and chose which fables would be included in the big black book.

[Joshua's Gen]

OK - but you actually didn't say judaism - you said christianity.. if you'd like to back up your first claim about the origins of christianity that's great - if not then we can move on to judaism and the OT. (This isn't a copout for fear - I thought we had the early church *first few centuries A.D.* in mind here)

Onto the NT which shows the origins of christianity.

Even the 'kinder, gentler' Jesus stories still promise eternal suffering

well, lets pretend for a second, that some interpretations are right... and that hell is only eternal torment for the fallen angels and select few... and all others are judged and eventually annihilated... which would you choose?

Would you then accept Christ's sacrifice for you, or would you still hate God so much that you'd rather be apart from Him forever than be in His eternal presence?

Naturally, if you reject the source of all life you're left with nothing but death.

And now for your enjoyment, scripture for the posts I make..
Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Zero's right to an extent. I've studied a great deal of mythology and the current monotheistic big three are, far and away, amoung the most violent and hate-filled.

I do have to disagree with his assesment of where the blame lies, though.

I can't blame the writers of the myths for the myths being so successfull. That would be like blaming Bill Gates for the popularity of Microsoft.

Instead, I blame the masses who refuse to do enough investigation of the histories of these religions and their origins. Those who created them knew very well that in order to control a group of people, that group ahd to have 3 things:

1. Ignorance. When a population does not have access to the facts, or the training in how to analize what they have, they are likely to believe what they are told.

2. Fear. If the population doesn't feel they have anything to loose by ignoring you, they will do just that, regardless of what rewards you may be promising them. People are, in general, motivated more by fear of punishment than by the promise of reward.

3. An enemy. Hitler knew this as well as the leaders of Christianity, Judeaism and Islam. So does Bush. It's all well and good to be able to tell people there is a threat of punishment for not obeying, but to truly motivate them to blind obedience, there needs to be someone out there who is actively seeking to bring you to that punishment. It doesn't matter if the enemy is totally fictional (the devil) or a conceptual group (terrorists) or a race/religion of people (the Jews). As long as there is some form of negative rallying point, it works.

[Zero]

Ummm...Jesus made little sacrifice, according to the NT(and lets not even get into the inaccuracy of the whole Jesus resurection thing), but the point is that there is no unconditional love and acceptance in either the OT or NT...there are only threats.

[Joshua's Gen]

Hmm, everytime I reply to a thread it subscribes me to it and emails me whenever someone replies even though I unchecked that option.

This is really more annoying than anything. :confused:

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen
Hmm, everytime I reply to a thread it subscribes me to it and emails me whenever someone replies even though I unchecked that option.

This is really more annoying than anything. :confused: Nah, it helps me plenty, but I always multitask, so it helps to know when a thread has been replied to.

[Joshua's Gen]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Instead, I blame the masses who refuse to do enough investigation of the histories of these religions and their origins. Those who created them knew very well that in order to control a group of people, that group ahd to have 3 things:

1. Ignorance. When a population does not have access to the facts, or the training in how to analize what they have, they are likely to believe what they are told.

you do realize that the earliest christians had the full ability to check on the historic facts, this is why names and places were used in the letters to the churches to back up these claims? *doh

Paul even so much as commended the Bereans in Acts for seeing if these things were true in scripture that he was preaching.

Ummm...Jesus made little sacrifice, according to the NT(and lets not even get into the inaccuracy of the whole Jesus resurection thing), but the point is that there is no unconditional love and acceptance in either the OT or NT...there are only threats.

again, these are nothing more than assertions... care to back them up with some scriptural proof in the NT records of early christianity?

I like how you totally avoid the specific questions asked, too. :p

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen


you do realize that the earliest christians had the full ability to check on the historic facts, this is why names and places were used in the letters to the churches to back up these claims? *doh



You do realize that most of the earliest christians who were not church leaders couldn't read or write, and so took what they were told on blind faith? *doh

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen





again, these are nothing more than assertions... care to back them up with some scriptural proof in the NT records of early christianity?

I like how you totally avoid the specific questions asked, too. :p Which specific point are you most ignorant on? There are so many gaps in your knowledge, I hardly know where to begin. The more specific your question, the better the answer you will get!:D

[Joshua's Gen]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


You do realize that most of the earliest christians who were not church leaders couldn't read or write, and so took what they were told on blind faith? *doh

simply another assertion again.. do you have anything at all to back that up? the historical facts are that most men in trade in those days of the roman control of jerusalem, most HAD to be bilingual and well read to be able to have a thriving business.

The Pharisees, Sanhedrin, ("educated leaders") etc of the day were vehement enemies of this new faith.. surely they or someone would have taken them to task and exposed them for the frauds they were, no?

The only time when the church masses couldnt read and understand the Bible was when Latin became a dead language and the RCC made it impossible for them to get their hands on Bibles (I don't think the Dark ages set forth in conjunction with these happenings by accident personally)

Another point - if they were so ignorant and couldnt read or write - then why all of the letter writing back and forth? what was that for - finger excerise? :p



Originally posted by Zero
Which specific point are you most ignorant on? There are so many gaps in your knowledge, I hardly know where to begin. The more specific your question, the better the answer you will get!:D

Mock & ridicule? I'm out. Other than that, I'm game.

You brought up eternal suffering.

I then asked you - 'well, lets pretend for a second, that some interpretations are right... and that hell is only eternal torment for the fallen angels and select few... and all others are judged and eventually annihilated... which would you choose?'

God or annhilation (no suffering).

You replied with 'well Christ never really gave much of a sacrifice'.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen








Mock & ridicule? I'm out. Other than that, I'm game.

You brought up eternal suffering.

I then asked you - 'well, lets pretend for a second, that some interpretations are right... and that hell is only eternal torment for the fallen angels and select few... and all others are judged and eventually annihilated... which would you choose?'

God or annhilation (no suffering).

You replied with 'well Christ never really gave much of a sacrifice'. I don't understand the question, because both situations are threats, which backs up my point.

And, of course, Christ didn't make any sacrifice, in a meaningful sense, and didn't fulfill any prophesy. The Bible is incoherent.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I cannot give evidence of the fact that people couldn't read and write in the times of early christianity, but I can parallel.

In Shakespeare's time, even tradesmen were unable to read, for the most part. The reasons Shakespeare's plays were written in verse was to make it easier for his actors to remember the lines, since they had to be given to the actors verbally. The actors, most of them tradesmen, could not read a word of English, which was the common language of the time.

[Joshua's Gen]

well, the one situation says you are annihilated - meaning no more - you die in unbelief, you are judged and *poof* punished by being made nonexistant (annihilated)...

this is what you believe now anyway, correct (nonexistance upon death)? so how is this a threat?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen
well, the one situation says you are annihilated - meaning no more - you die in unbelief, you are judged and *poof* punished by being made nonexistant (annihilated)...

this is what you believe now anyway, correct (nonexistance upon death)? so how is this a threat?

You're mixing issues here.

Christianity does not deal with the atheist view of death being the end. What Zero is talking about is the fact that christianity says do this or be punished. It's that simple.

The atheist view is that death is the end for everyone. (One atheist view, I should say.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen
well, the one situation says you are annihilated - meaning no more - you die in unbelief, you are judged and *poof* punished by being made nonexistant (annihilated)...

this is what you believe now anyway, correct (nonexistance upon death)? so how is this a threat? Because if you buy the myth, you see Heaven as the reward, and everything else as punishment...whish is the point. Your religion is a series of threats and rewards, which is fear and greed, and has nothing to do with anything positive.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen
The Pharisees, Sanhedrin, ("educated leaders") etc of the day were vehement enemies of this new faith.. surely they or someone would have taken them to task and exposed them for the frauds they were, no?How, exactly?

[Pahansiri]

My friend Christian wrote And still the question goes unanswered. Why would Christianity be the most powerful force in human history and still today the most relevant? [sarcasm on] It must be pure luck[sarcasm off]

What is the definition of “most powerful”
What defines Most powerful as to religion”
What defines “most relevant”?

I think certain statistics would prove this to be the case.

“certain statistics” may be used to try and say it would prove a case and certain statistics would disprove it.


(e.g most published book in history, most widespread message, most translated book of all times, the most powerful nation in the world with the most adherents, the largest religion today, etc.)

This again dates back to Constantine, it was almost purely due to his decision to choose Christianity as to the state religion. Through great violence and blood shed he spread it to all Roman controlled places.

Buddhism spread through much of the world without one act of violence..

If we look at size as being determining factor of “power” or relevance the Buddhist Pali Canon (Tipitaka) is 11 times larger then the OT and NT.

Size is what matters and makes something most relevant?

If by size do you mean that when most of the world believed the earth was flat, it was?
Does this mean a midget is less relevant then a full sized human?

A sky scrapper more relevant then your home?

The Himalayas more relevant then a beautiful small mountain near your home?

A rich person more relevant then a poor person.

In NY most people think the Yankees are the best baseball team in Boston most people believe the Red socks are, who is right?


You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' – by The Righteous Brothers is the most played Song on the Radio in millions as of December, 2002. So is this the best song ever, the most powerful the most relevant?

I could list many such records one need look why these “records” exists. I.e. what is a great force behind the printing record is the desire by Christians to change/convert people history is clear the suffering this has caused.


As to “most powerful Nation in the world” which nation is that? I know of no Christian nation.

Again one must ask what do you mean by powerful?

Ability to inflict violence or control another?

Remember Rome was at one time “the most powerful nation” that as all things changed.

It would be easy to argue that the USSR was as powerful as we were still has many nukes in a nuke battle it would be a [/b]dead[b] draw. Does this make Communism and communist Atheism in a tie for most powerful and relevant?



As to most adherents, the largest religion today

That depends on whose numbers you look at many list Islam as the largest with most adherents and fastest growing.

Remember 74-76 % of the worlds population are not Christian to them Christianity is not most relevant. I as a Buddhist ( one out of every 5 people) while I respect you and all and respect Christianity is relevant to you it is not to me.

As I said as to just my belief your base statement it is a matter of opinion as to what is relevant.

To me what is most if not only relevant in the end is that we have loving kindness, respect and compassion for ourselves and all living things.


Be well and SAVE, you know twins girls 2x’s everything… Just the phone bills…lol

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Zero
Because if you buy the myth, you see Heaven as the reward, and everything else as punishment...whish is the point. Your religion is a series of threats and rewards, which is fear and greed, and has nothing to do with anything positive.

Well, its really not that unexpected, if you're starting from a view of fallen man, who is naturally depraved. They wouldn't respond to anything else, and this would I think be the best way to set things up if that is the state of mankind.

Sure, there's some good there, people being made in the image of God and such, but its shadowed, and the reward/punishment system is a way of backing up the moral law. Its really not that different from the laws of the land- do right, you get liberties, break laws, you lose them. May not be a very nice way of seeing things, but if thats how the world works...


Oh, and he's not a troll btw, he just followed me here. Unless of course you want to turn this into a really big conspiracy :p

[Zero]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Well, its really not that unexpected, if you're starting from a view of fallen man, who is naturally depraved. They wouldn't respond to anything else, and this would I think be the best way to set things up if that is the state of mankind.

Sure, there's some good there, people being made in the image of God and such, but its shadowed, and the reward/punishment system is a way of backing up the moral law. Its really not that different from the laws of the land- do right, you get liberties, break laws, you lose them. May not be a very nice way of seeing things, but if thats how the world works...


Oh, and he's not a troll btw, he just followed me here. Unless of course you want to turn this into a really big conspiracy :p Well, if you start from the view of already believing all of it, I guess you can justify anything, can't you? And if your missionaries are backed up by large guys with swords, it makes it easy to sell it to others, doesn't it?

BTW, I don't see the religious laws as having anything to do with ethics or morality...the rules that are specific to the Abrahamic religions are simply the controls put in place by the ancient clerics and guys in charge. The resat are common sense stuff like not going around killing people.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, if you start from the view of already believing all of it, I guess you can justify anything, can't you? And if your missionaries are backed up by large guys with swords, it makes it easy to sell it to others, doesn't it?

BTW, I don't see the religious laws as having anything to do with ethics or morality...the rules that are specific to the Abrahamic religions are simply the controls put in place by the ancient clerics and guys in charge. The resat are common sense stuff like not going around killing people.

Anything? Certainly not. However, if it is true, then that sort of punishment/reward system would be necessary.

You get people coming to your door with swords? :p

Common sense or no, its still ethics. And laws such as freeing slaves after 7 years wouldn't exactly be very popular among the people in charge, I wouldn't think...

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Anything? Certainly not. However, if it is true, then that sort of punishment/reward system would be necessary.

You get people coming to your door with swords? :p

Common sense or no, its still ethics. And laws such as freeing slaves after 7 years wouldn't exactly be very popular among the people in charge, I wouldn't think...

While I do not get people coming to my door with swords, I do have people vandalize my property in the name of christianity. That would be a very close modern American equivilant.

As for the ethics issue, I believe what Zero is trying to say (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, Zero.) is that the ethics "taught" by the bible were common sense and known to begin with. In essence, the laws of the religion either dealt specifics as control mechanisms, or they were nothing new.

[canadarocks]

While I do not get people coming to my door with swords, I do have people vandalize my property in the name of christianity. That would be a very close modern American equivilant.

Do you have specifics on how your property was vandalized?:confused:

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


While I do not get people coming to my door with swords, I do have people vandalize my property in the name of christianity. That would be a very close modern American equivilant.

As for the ethics issue, I believe what Zero is trying to say (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, Zero.) is that the ethics "taught" by the bible were common sense and known to begin with. In essence, the laws of the religion either dealt specifics as control mechanisms, or they were nothing new.

Are you serious? Thats disgusting- have they caught those who did so?

Well, thats what my slave freeing example was for- it certainly wasn't a cultural norm at the time to do so, and neither would it have been advantageous to those in power.

[Some Friggin Guy]

No, they have not caught the people that have done it. In fact it has happened five times (those of you who remember my last post about this, it's happend twice more) and either someone is following me, or it's different people.

Basically, I will go into a store only to return to the parking lot and find a "Jesus Fish" stuck on it that wasn't there when I went in.

5 times.

All reported to the police, who don't consider it vandalism (I live in Nashville. There are more churches in thsi city than any other in the US) and it's not claimable under my insurance (Damages aren't expensive enough, and I can't get a police report.)

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Well, its really not that unexpected, if you're starting from a view of fallen man, who is naturally depraved. They wouldn't respond to anything else, and this would I think be the best way to set things up if that is the state of mankind.

Sure, there's some good there, people being made in the image of God and such, but its shadowed, and the reward/punishment system is a way of backing up the moral law. Its really not that different from the laws of the land- do right, you get liberties, break laws, you lose them. May not be a very nice way of seeing things, but if thats how the world works...


Oh, and he's not a troll btw, he just followed me here. Unless of course you want to turn this into a really big conspiracy :p

So God creates beings that will choose to become depraved?

Why?

Why start with "fallen" man? Go back further to perfect creation.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy




As for the ethics issue, I believe what Zero is trying to say (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, Zero.) is that the ethics "taught" by the bible were common sense and known to begin with. In essence, the laws of the religion either dealt specifics as control mechanisms, or they were nothing new. No problem, that was my point exactly.


But, of course, I forgot the best reason to be a Christian: NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

[Some Friggin Guy]

I'm going to have to disagree with you slightly on that one, Zero. Christians do have personal responsibility, but they don't have any difficult personal choices.

Essentially, owing to the control mechanisms inherent within their faith, there is no grey area. Either you are a good christian, or you are going to hell. If you are a good christian, you are required to try and convert others to christianity.

That is the christian's personal responsibility. The lack of grey area means that, they don't actually have a personal CHOICE.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I'm going to have to disagree with you slightly on that one, Zero. Christians do have personal responsibility, but they don't have any difficult personal choices.

Essentially, owing to the control mechanisms inherent within their faith, there is no grey area. Either you are a good christian, or you are going to hell. If you are a good christian, you are required to try and convert others to christianity.

That is the christian's personal responsibility. The lack of grey area means that, they don't actually have a personal CHOICE. Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with myself...Christians have a single responsibility: join the cult. Once they do that, they are no longer responsible for anything. Jesus pays for their sins, the Devil makes them do bad things, everything is God's will.

I agree with you on the grey areas, too.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with myself

Is that allowed?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with myself...Christians have a single responsibility: join the cult. Once they do that, they are no longer responsible for anything. Jesus pays for their sins, the Devil makes them do bad things, everything is God's will.

I agree with you on the grey areas, too.

I think it would be said that the "devil" tempts them, not makes them.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by frisian


I think it would be said that the "devil" tempts them, not makes them.

Those that believe in possession do say that the devil can make you do things.

Edit to add:

Again, sorry if I'm putting words in Zero's mouht, but I believe he probably meant to say that the devil makes bad things happen, not necessarily that he makes you do bad things.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


Those that believe in possession do say that the devil can make you do things.

Edit to add:

Again, sorry if I'm putting words in Zero's mouht, but I believe he probably meant to say that the devil makes bad things happen, not necessarily that he makes you do bad things.

Ok, agreed unless Zero disagrees with himself again.

;)

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


I think it would be said that the "devil" tempts them, not makes them. Don't expect me to know exactly how fictional characters act, ok? All I know is that I've heard the phase before, so I used it here.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Don't expect me to know exactly how fictional characters act, ok? All I know is that I've heard the phase before, so I used it here.

I don't recall revealing my expectations, I was just going along the lines of what is defined typically by Judeo-Christians?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Zero
Don't expect me to know exactly how fictional characters act, ok? All I know is that I've heard the phase before, so I used it here.

You know, this brings up an interesting idea.

There are those who are fans (obsessive) of TV shows or movies or comics, etc. They can often be heard to say things like "That's not how Captian Kirk would act!"

These people are called Fan-boys.

Should we be using the same term to describe fundies?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


You know, this brings up an interesting idea.

There are those who are fans (obsessive) of TV shows or movies or comics, etc. They can often be heard to say things like "That's not how Captian Kirk would act!"

These people are called Fan-boys.

Should we be using the same term to describe fundies? Could be...they have the same sort of disconnect from reality and fanatical devotion to fiction...

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


I don't recall revealing my expectations, I was just going along the lines of what is defined typically by Judeo-Christians? Ummm...you could lighten up just a bit? I promise I won't tell anyone if you do, ok?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...you could lighten up just a bit? I promise I won't tell anyone if you do, ok?

I am fine. :D

[Some Friggin Guy]

They also have their conventions, too.


Of course, they call it "church".

[Zero]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
They also have their conventions, too.


Of course, they call it "church". Also, I wonder if people aren't attracted to church because they can use it as an excuse as to why they can't find someone to have sex with? The Trekkies never get any either, but at least they can dream about green-skinned chicks...:p

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Zero
Also, I wonder if people aren't attracted to church because they can use it as an excuse as to why they can't find someone to have sex with? The Trekkies never get any either, but at least they can dream about green-ckinned chicks...:p

I'd say it's more designed for the fan-boy mentality.

See, in Trek, Kirk was always getting some.

Christianity says sex is evil, so don't feel bad about not having it, because you're better than the people who are!

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Also, I wonder if people aren't attracted to church because they can use it as an excuse as to why they can't find someone to have sex with? The Trekkies never get any either, but at least they can dream about green-skinned chicks...:p

Priests and altar boys kind of ruin that theory.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Priests and altar boys kind of ruin that theory. See, that's just nasty!!

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
See, that's just nasty!!

:)

Gee, I thought I had lightened up.

:p

Hell I am even glowing.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by frisian
Hell I am even glowing.

I don't think humans are supposed to posses any kind of bioluminesance.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


I don't think humans are supposed to posses any kind of bioluminesance.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Human_20Bioluminescence#1072606448

[Some Friggin Guy]

Okay...maybe they can posses bioluminesence.


But I know for a FACT humans are not supposed to have plaid flesh!


(If he pulls up a link for this one, it will be absolut proof that the universe is a terrifically silly place.)

[frisian]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Okay...maybe they can posses bioluminesence.


But I know for a FACT humans are not supposed to have plaid flesh!


(If he pulls up a link for this one, it will be absolut proof that the universe is a terrifically silly place.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mini-painter/message/20584

[Some Friggin Guy]

Okay, linking to some guy asking about plaid flesh coloured paint doesn't count.

Which means there's still hope for some rationality in the universe yet.

[sparklecat]

Plaid paint?


Was there anything back there yall actually wanted me to respond to?

[Zero]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Plaid paint?


Was there anything back there yall actually wanted me to respond to? You can respond to this, if you like:

Christians have a single responsibility: join the cult. Once they do that, they are no longer responsible for anything. Jesus pays for their sins, the Devil makes them do bad things, everything is God's will.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Zero
You can respond to this, if you like:

Christians have a single responsibility: join the cult. Once they do that, they are no longer responsible for anything. Jesus pays for their sins, the Devil makes them do bad things, everything is God's will.

A danger in saying "all" as to anything. Not all Christians believe that way.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


A danger in saying "all" as to anything. Not all Christians believe that way. True enough....just the most heavily infected ones think this way. :D

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Zero
You can respond to this, if you like:

Christians have a single responsibility: join the cult. Once they do that, they are no longer responsible for anything. Jesus pays for their sins, the Devil makes them do bad things, everything is God's will.

Ok, I can give my view of things at least :)

I think it depends how you define responsibility... no responsibility maybe in the sense of consequences (though there is the whole deal of rewards in heaven and such), but the world and your own conscience (whether Holy Spirit imposed or no) bring their own consequences and responsibilities. The sense of sin and wrongdoing is heightened, really, rather than minimized.

As for "the devil made me do it," I haven't found many that actually hold to that view. Nor do I know many who are Calvinistic enough that they think everything being in God's will makes him somehow excuse it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Ok, I can give my view of things at least :)

I think it depends how you define responsibility... no responsibility maybe in the sense of consequences (though there is the whole deal of rewards in heaven and such), but the world and your own conscience (whether Holy Spirit imposed or no) bring their own consequences and responsibilities. The sense of sin and wrongdoing is heightened, really, rather than minimized.

As for "the devil made me do it," I haven't found many that actually hold to that view. Nor do I know many who are Calvinistic enough that they think everything being in God's will makes him somehow excuse it. Actually, the Bible starts with the ultimate surrendering of responsibility: all humans are inherently "sinful" thanks to Adam and Eve. The basic worthlessness of humanity culminates in the whole Jesus myth: you are all unworthy, but if you suck up to the man-God, you get into heaven anyways.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, the Bible starts with the ultimate surrendering of responsibility: all humans are inherently "sinful" thanks to Adam and Eve. The basic worthlessness of humanity culminates in the whole Jesus myth: you are all unworthy, but if you suck up to the man-God, you get into heaven anyways.

How does sinfulness equal surrendered responsibility? To me, it seems more that the Biblical idea of sinful humanity highlights our responsibility for our choice and the consequences of such that we have to deal with, culminating in how we can be forgiven of them.

The only lack of personal responsibility would be in those who use Christianity as a get out of hell free card, while living as they want...

And its not worthlessness per se, humans have inherent worth... just depravity.

[Zero]

Originally posted by sparklecat


How does sinfulness equal surrendered responsibility? To me, it seems more that the Biblical idea of sinful humanity highlights our responsibility for our choice and the consequences of such that we have to deal with, culminating in how we can be forgiven of them.

The only lack of personal responsibility would be in those who use Christianity as a get out of hell free card, while living as they want...

And its not worthlessness per se, humans have inherent worth... just depravity.

I haven't done anything wrong, I don't need forgiveness for being human...


...anyhoo, I'm biased, because I think the whole thing is a crock to begin with.;)

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


How does sinfulness equal surrendered responsibility? To me, it seems more that the Biblical idea of sinful humanity highlights our responsibility for our choice and the consequences of such that we have to deal with, culminating in how we can be forgiven of them.

The only lack of personal responsibility would be in those who use Christianity as a get out of hell free card, while living as they want...

And its not worthlessness per se, humans have inherent worth... just depravity.

Depraved worth?

Did Jesus command or suggest things?

How does an all knowing God not become indicted for the permission of sin to exist?

Also, how do you know with certainty that free will exists? Or is that speculation?



Isn't the idea of accepting Christ, for that which one cannot do, this get out of hell free card?

;)

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
The sense of sin and wrongdoing is heightened, really, rather than minimized.


So this comes as an epiphany? What is ones responsibility after becoming enlightened to this depraved state? How does one merely of self reconcile this? Or is this the appeal of Christianity?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Zero


I haven't done anything wrong, I don't need forgiveness for being human...


...anyhoo, I'm biased, because I think the whole thing is a crock to begin with.;)

*shrugs* If Christianity is true, you have.

Biased perhaps, but I'm just showing the internal consistency :p

I think... have somewhat forgotten by now :D

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian


Depraved worth?

Did Jesus command or suggest things?

How does an all knowing God not become indicted for the permission of sin to exist?

Also, how do you know with certainty that free will exists? Or is that speculation?

Isn't the idea of accepting Christ, for that which one cannot do, this get out of hell free card?

;)

Yes.

Yes.

Knowing/allowing as opposed to doing?

Speculation.

Not unless thats the exclusive reason... one can actually wish to follow God.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

So this comes as an epiphany? What is ones responsibility after becoming enlightened to this depraved state? How does one merely of self reconcile this? Or is this the appeal of Christianity?

I believe thats the standard line given, yes. One sees one's depraved state, despairs, turns to God, etc.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Yes.

Yes.

Knowing/allowing as opposed to doing?

Speculation.

Not unless thats the exclusive reason... one can actually wish to follow God.

Oh and hello. :D

You responded yes to an either or question. Does that indicate both?

Via indirect fiat he does, God I mean. For nothing occurs outside the will of God including evil, so he sidesteps the issue like Pilate did with Christ and says he didn't directly commit the evil? Is that how it works?

Still having the "sin" nature or whatever semantic you prefer, after the conversion one wishes to solely follow God?

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


I believe thats the standard line given, yes. One sees one's depraved state, despairs, turns to God, etc.

So often (not having this heightened sense of lack of self worth) one doesn't have a form of despair prior to the epiphany?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian
Oh and hello. :D

You responded yes to an either or question. Does that indicate both?

Via indirect fiat he does, God I mean. For nothing occurs outside the will of God including evil, so he sidesteps the issue like Pilate did with Christ and says he didn't directly commit the evil? Is that how it works?

Still having the "sin" nature or whatever semantic you prefer, after the conversion one wishes to solely follow God?

Hi :p

Yup.

No, simply that he sees something as more important than preventing evil, presumably free will.

As you said, still having the sin nature, no.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

So often (not having this heightened sense of lack of self worth) one doesn't have a form of despair prior to the epiphany?

As I said, its not a lack of worth, its a state of hopeless sinfulness.

What epiphany? You've lost me.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Hi :p

Yup.

No, simply that he sees something as more important than preventing evil, presumably free will.

As you said, still having the sin nature, no.

So like Pilate exclaiming he was not guilty of crucifying Christ, God backs away from directly commiting sin because the will of the people or person is found greater, like Pilate allowing the masses to decide.

Can you cite where Jesus merely suggests and doesn't command?

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


As I said, its not a lack of worth, its a state of hopeless sinfulness.

What epiphany? You've lost me.

Self worth I said, because worth of merely the self within Christianity is nil. The only worth one has is through Christ correct?

I am calling the conversion experience roughly an epiphany.

Isn't it a dramatic experience?

So one cannot stop sinning both prior to the conversion and afterwards, yet one has a heightened sense of the sinfulness. This heightened sense is given to suggest what?

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Hi :p

Yup.

No, simply that he sees something as more important than preventing evil, presumably free will.

As you said, still having the sin nature, no.

Back to this for a moment. You stated free will was mere speculation. Let's say it is not existent at all... if there is no free will whom is the initial creator of evil then? Directly or indirectly?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian
So like Pilate exclaiming he was not guilty of crucifying Christ, God backs away from directly commiting sin because the will of the people or person is found greater, like Pilate allowing the masses to decide.

Can you cite where Jesus merely suggests and doesn't command?

Hmm, let me think on that one and get back to you. Seriously, remind me to respond to it, or I'll forget.

Depends, how do you mean "suggests?" I think I may have meant something different than you...

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

Self worth I said, because worth of merely the self within Christianity is nil. The only worth one has is through Christ correct?

I am calling the conversion experience roughly an epiphany.

Isn't it a dramatic experience?

So one cannot stop sinning both prior to the conversion and afterwards, yet one has a heightened sense of the sinfulness. This heightened sense is given to suggest what?

Hmm. Kind of. There's the self-worth inherant because we're "made in the image of God." But self-worth in the sense that you're a good person by yourself, no. But how could it be any different than us having our self-worth only through God, if he created us? All the good we did would be a reflection of him, if you will.

Dramatic? Depends, the actual moment wasn't very dramatic for me.

Well, a part of it is the whole process by which one sins less after a Christian, though the sinning doesn't completely stop I don't think. The sense of sin is then the conviction to change... though thats a generalization, and doesn't always apply.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Hmm, let me think on that one and get back to you. Seriously, remind me to respond to it, or I'll forget.

Depends, how do you mean "suggests?" I think I may have meant something different than you...

Suggest like he gave advice that he thought you should try to accomplish... would use words that indicated mere effort was to be done.

Asking for where Christ does this, not Paul.

For example, he said "go and sin no more". That is a command. There isn't a hint of it merely being try not to sin no more.

Would also love to go through free will with you sometime.


;)

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

Back to this for a moment. You stated free will was mere speculation. Let's say it is not existent at all... if there is no free will whom is the initial creator of evil then? Directly or indirectly?

Aye, thats one huge problem... remove free will, and Christianity falls apart... God becomes sadistic and capricious really.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

Suggest like he gave advice that he thought you should try to accomplish... would use words that indicated mere effort was to be done.

Asking for where Christ does this, not Paul.

For example, he said "go and sin no more". That is a command. There isn't a hint of it merely being try not to sin no more.

Would also love to go through free will with you sometime.

;)

Ah. No then, not that I'm aware of... we're commanded to be righteous, not told to give it a shot.

Free will is an interesting subject, yes :)

That seemed vaguely... suggestive :p

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Hmm. Kind of. There's the self-worth inherant because we're "made in the image of God." But self-worth in the sense that you're a good person by yourself, no. But how could it be any different than us having our self-worth only through God, if he created us? All the good we did would be a reflection of him, if you will.

Dramatic? Depends, the actual moment wasn't very dramatic for me.

Well, a part of it is the whole process by which one sins less after a Christian, though the sinning doesn't completely stop I don't think. The sense of sin is then the conviction to change... though thats a generalization, and doesn't always apply.

The moment wasn't dramatic for you yet you describe this heightened sense?


Edited to add - So do the damned have worth then, this image of God seems to have no meaning to the damned, thus ONLY through Christ does this image of God angle have any "value".

Then you go on to explain how any good we do is a reflection of him, once again minimizing any self worth separate from him... thus seems as though there is NO inherent self worth.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Aye, thats one huge problem... remove free will, and Christianity falls apart... God becomes sadistic and capricious really.

So one could say you find Christianity rather speculative, no?

;)

Which makes this all the more interesting that you suggested I just take your word for it regarding open theism and free will's relation to it.

:p

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Ah. No then, not that I'm aware of... we're commanded to be righteous, not told to give it a shot.

Free will is an interesting subject, yes :)

That seemed vaguely... suggestive :p

Merely suggestive of the fact that I am not convinced you are settled as you implied in terms of free will at that other forum.

:p

Although other suggestive variables could be enchanting and delightful.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by sparklecat


remove free will, and Christianity falls apart... God becomes sadistic and capricious really.

Actually, even with free will, god becomes sadistic and capricious. Think of it this way:

If god gives free will, then punishes you for ever excersizing that freewill (meaning, he gives you all these rules you must follow or go to hell), it seems to me that god did this just to be able to punish people, since it would be much easier to simply eliminate free will.

So, either god created freewill knowing it would cause people to be punished horribly, which makes him capricious, crule and potentially psychotic...

Or god, didn't know granting freewill would cause people to defy him, in which case the whole idea of omnipotence flies right out the window.