What are Christians supposed to believe? [Archive]

Jon_in_london

28th August 2003, 12:27 AM

Christians are Jews who belive that a man named Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Jesus said that he is God and that God is love.

The problem is that the God of the Old Testament is most certainly not a God of love. He is a God of cruetly, inconsistency and evil. He is puerile, jealous and vain. Very far from the beatific Christian idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being of pure love.

So why do Christians still hold on to the Old Testament, since it contradicts what Jesus says? Well, the truth is that without Genesis, whithout the serpent and man and the woman and the tree, without original sin, Jesus's whole raison d'etre promptly vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Thats why Christians have to work so hard to ignore huge chunks of thier own Holy scriptures.

In short, Christians have to believe what they are told to/want to believe and pretend not to have read the bits they dont like.

Thats why the Christians faith is particularly pathetic.

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Christians are Jews who belive that a man named Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Jesus said that he is God and that God is love.

The problem is that the God of the Old Testament is most certainly not a God of love. He is a God of cruetly, inconsistency and evil. He is puerile, jealous and vain. Very far from the beatific Christian idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being of pure love.

So why do Christians still hold on to the Old Testament, since it contradicts what Jesus says? Well, the truth is that without Genesis, whithout the serpent and man and the woman and the tree, without original sin, Jesus's whole raison d'etre promptly vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Thats why Christians have to work so hard to ignore huge chunks of thier own Holy scriptures.

In short, Christians have to believe what they are told to/want to believe and pretend not to have read the bits they dont like.

Thats why the Christians faith is particularly pathetic.

Jon I actually sort of agree with everything you've said.

But don't you think that a religion can evolve?

And I think it can be successfully argued that without an understanding of the O.T., the N.T. doesn't make much sense.

For example, if you examine the history of science, you'll see the evolution of scientific belief. Now, would you have all the contradictions and the nonsense and various black skeletons in science's past stricken from the record?

Now this comparison does break down, since science is not (necessarily) presented in it's complete historical form. This just accentuates a primary difference between religion and science. With religion it is helpful to be reminded of how other people have thought. With science that doesn't do much good.

Of course a Christian could edit the Bible into something more palatable.

Atheists are just as good as pulling Bible quotes as fundamentalists. One of my fave Bible passages is Jeremiah chapter 31. I won't quote it in its entirety, but I'd like to believe that if anyone were to read it, they'd understand that without everything that came before it in the O.T., the chapter just wouldn't make much sense, but more importantly, it wouldn't touch the heart in nearly the right way.

In that way I don't ignore anything. And you, yourself, say that Christians are Jews. So why should Christians strike the Jewish scripture from their record?

Christians do not have to pretend that the problematic parts don't exist. They are there to demonstrate how the ideas of God developed over time. If you think that is pathetic, why such a negative attitude? People did not think like us thousands of years ago, what is so pathetic about that?

-Elliot

Jon_in_london

28th August 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Jon I actually sort of agree with everything you've said.

:)

Originally posted by elliotfc

But don't you think that a religion can evolve?

No. Religions are dogmatic. You have your holy scriptures, you stick to them. Otherwise you are just making it up as you go along, arent you?

Originally posted by elliotfc

And I think it can be successfully argued that without an understanding of the O.T., the N.T. doesn't make much sense.

No sense whatsoever, as I pointed out above, with the OT jesus becomes utterly pointless.

Originally posted by elliotfc

For example, if you examine the history of science, you'll see the evolution of scientific belief. Now, would you have all the contradictions and the nonsense and various black skeletons in science's past stricken from the record?

Now this comparison does break down, since science is not (necessarily) presented in it's complete historical form.

The comparison is false from the start because science isnt dogmatic

This just accentuates a primary difference between religion and science. With religion it is helpful to be reminded of how other people have thought. With science that doesn't do much good.

Nonsense.

Of course a Christian could edit the Bible into something more palatable.

All of them do.

Atheists are just as good as pulling Bible quotes as fundamentalists. One of my fave Bible passages is Jeremiah chapter 31. I won't quote it in its entirety, but I'd like to believe that if anyone were to read it, they'd understand that without everything that came before it in the O.T., the chapter just wouldn't make much sense, but more importantly, it wouldn't touch the heart in nearly the right way.

In that way I don't ignore anything. And you, yourself, say that Christians are Jews. So why should Christians strike the Jewish scripture from their record?

[/quote]
Christians do not have to pretend that the problematic parts don't exist. They are there to demonstrate how the ideas of God developed over time. If you think that is pathetic, why such a negative attitude? People did not think like us thousands of years ago, what is so pathetic about that?
[/quote]

Gods ideas develope? that means gods idea a while back werent very good? Its not God that has changed Elliot. Like you say, its people and peoples ideas that have changed, not God and Gods ideas.

Cinorjer

28th August 2003, 05:17 AM

You know, of course, that Christians come in a whole variety of flavors, from liberal to fundamentalist. But, in a nutshell, I'd have to say the following:

Christians believe that the Jesus written about in the Bible is the Messiah, put on this world by God to atone for our collective sins. To that end, Jesus taught a few short years and then was crucified on the cross as the perfect sacrifice. Being the Messiah, Jesus rose from the dead to exhort his followers to spread the good news, then ascended to Heaven to be with God until the time of his second coming. By doing this, Jesus took our sins upon himself, and we can enter into Heaven only through his grace.

The devil is in the details. There are Christians who discount the virgin birth as tacked on, and have no problem with Jesus becoming the adopted son of God at the famous John the Baptist scene. Some Christians even think when Jesus rose from the dead, it was in spirit form, not his old body walking around like a zombie. And of course, exactly when that "second coming" will take place and in what form is always subject to debate.

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
No. Religions are dogmatic. You have your holy scriptures, you stick to them. Otherwise you are just making it up as you go along, arent you?

All I can say is that you are being extremely dogmatic when you say that religions are dogmatic.

If you can't conceive of a religion that understands their holy scriptures in a different way than you would have them understand them then I don't know what to say to you.

As for making it up as you go along, yes, I think that analogies can be constructed that evolve over time.

No sense whatsoever, as I pointed out above, with the OT jesus becomes utterly pointless.

No, the OT points to the redemption of Israel, and points to a time when the covenant promises will be fulfilled. All you have to do is follow the annotations in the N.T., trace them back to the O.T., and you'll see what I mean. I don't know how many books have been written about this topic. Here is my e-mail address:
elliotfc@optonline.net
I can send you 4 cassettes which will prove this. I'm not trying to get you to *believe* anything, but your position that "with the OT Jesus becomes utterly pointless" is absolutely untenable. If you don't want to hear informtion that will prove you wrong I can't force you to of course. We could start a thread devoted to this issue, and then it'll just be a matter of where to start.

The comparison is false from the start because science isnt dogmatic.

You say that with such dogmatic conviction. It's a shame that scientists would ruin people's careers and reputations for not holding to this scientific theory, or that scientific theory. When it comes to science being dogmatic, or not dogmatic, I can only judge her by the actions of her representatives.

Gods ideas develope? that means gods idea a while back werent very good? Its not God that has changed Elliot. Like you say, its people and peoples ideas that have changed, not God and Gods ideas.

When I said "the ideas of God" it was a typo, I meant to say "our ideas of God". I need to start proofreading my messages obviously. :(

-Elliot

Crossbow

28th August 2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Well?

Note, the question isn't what you would have Christians believe.

The question is, given the declaration that one is a Christian, what expectiation do you have for the beliefs they should have?

-Elliot

Not to sound wishy-washy, but that depends a good bit on which Christian you ask.

As far as I can tell, there are four major sects of Christianity:

1) Original - such as the Coptic and Aramaic Christians and is practiced in some sections of the modern Middle East and Turkey.
2) Greek Orthodox - widely practiced in the former 'Greek' or 'Eastern' half of the former Roman Empire after it was split.
3) Catholic - widely practiced in the former 'Latin' or 'Western' half of the former Roman Empire after it was split.
4) Protestant - formed by split in the Catholic sect that now have such large numbers they are their own sect.

And among these four major sects there are numerous sub-divisions and rivalries.

So again, it depends upon which Christian you ask.

Gregor

28th August 2003, 06:24 AM

Elliot

Your attempts to evangelize this board through the distribution of audio cassettes demonstrate that your initial post is simply a Trojan Horse - if you'll allow me to borrow from another ancient near-east story that probably has some truth but is mostly myth.

I'd like every Xian to admit "my entire religion is simply my personal belief (without evidence) that a supreme being exists, coupled with my hope in the existence of Jesus and an afterlife (because I'm insecure about death), loosely based upon a few bits of the Bible that I like (which I'm afraid to critically examine because of the book's inconsistencies, history, errors, and other problems)."

"Lastly, I must admit that my religion is based upon my own insecurities and wilfully ignoring facts that might hurt my belief and hope."

I'd admire the Xian who admits these statements.

Jon_in_london

28th August 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

All I can say is that you are being extremely dogmatic when you say that religions are dogmatic.

If you can't conceive of a religion that understands their holy scriptures in a different way than you would have them understand them then I don't know what to say to you.

I can be dogmatic because Im right. Scriptures do not evolve any more than 'Pride and Prejudice' has evolved. Its still says exactly the same thing now as it did when it was written.

Im not talking obout differences in interpretation or understanding. When God says he creates evil, thats pretty much good enough for even an idiot to understand dont you think?
What YOU are talking about is cherry-picking the warm fuzzy bits while forgetting the bits that say how God is actually an evil, petty, vindictive s**t.

Originally posted by elliotfc

As for making it up as you go along, yes, I think that analogies can be constructed that evolve over time.

Im sure analogies can. Shame we arent talking about analogies isnt it?

Originally posted by elliotfc

No, the OT points to the redemption of Israel, and points to a time when the covenant promises will be fulfilled. All you have to do is follow the annotations in the N.T., trace them back to the O.T., and you'll see what I mean. I don't know how many books have been written about this topic. Here is my e-mail address:
elliotfc@optonline.net
I can send you 4 cassettes which will prove this. I'm not trying to get you to *believe* anything, but your position that "with the OT Jesus becomes utterly pointless" is absolutely untenable. If you don't want to hear informtion that will prove you wrong I can't force you to of course. We could start a thread devoted to this issue, and then it'll just be a matter of where to start.

I dont want your eamil address or your poxy cassettes. Its an absoloute fact that without original sin there wouldnt be any point in having a saviour would there!?

You are welcome to POST information on this forum that you think will prove me wrong but you would because it doesnt exist.

Originally posted by elliotfc

You say that with such dogmatic conviction. It's a shame that scientists would ruin people's careers and reputations for not holding to this scientific theory, or that scientific theory. When it comes to science being dogmatic, or not dogmatic, I can only judge her by the actions of her representatives.

You are welcome to hold whatever beliefs you want but if you profess the belief that grapefruits can be used a substitute for a kidney transplant, you better be able to back it up, otherwise people might think you are a bit of a t**t, dont you think? At least scientist dont go around torturing and burning people who disagree with them.

Originally posted by elliotfc

When I said "the ideas of God" it was a typo, I meant to say "our ideas of God". I need to start proofreading my messages obviously. :(

-Elliot

What you actually mean to say is that your ideas of God are straying from the Bible (the word of God), and in doing so, you are basically just making it up as you go along. Whats the point? Why not just invent some completely new religion all for yourself? Oh, sorry, you already have.

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Gregor
Elliot

Your attempts to evangelize this board through the distribution of audio cassettes demonstrate that your initial post is simply a Trojan Horse - if you'll allow me to borrow from another ancient near-east story that probably has some truth but is mostly myth.

Oh please. Think what you want. I said you had a stupid notion that the O.T. and Jesus are unrelated, or whatever the hell you said. Go ahead and raise the "evangelize" banner if you like. How about this. Just read your Bible from front to cover, and I'll keep the audiocassettes that directly contradict your stupid belief.

-Elliot

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Gregor
I'd like every Xian to admit "my entire religion is simply my personal belief (without evidence) that a supreme being exists, coupled with my hope in the existence of Jesus and an afterlife (because I'm insecure about death), loosely based upon a few bits of the Bible that I like (which I'm afraid to critically examine because of the book's inconsistencies, history, errors, and other problems)."

It is my personal belief, but it isn't simple, and it is influenced by I don't know how many things.

That a supreme being exists is a conclusion. I didn't start with the idea, I arrived at it, and you can blame that on my experiences and biases and notions, whatever.

I can't prove a supreme being exists in the way you want me to, since the supreme being is by definition supernatural.

Fixate on what you think my insecurities are, that says more about you than it does about me.

It's more than a few bits of the Bible that I like, and I am not afraid to critically examine the Bible's inconsistencies et al.

"Lastly, I must admit that my religion is based upon my own insecurities and wilfully ignoring facts that might hurt my belief and hope."

I'd admire the Xian who admits these statements.

I suppose every human being has insecurities, and we deal with them as best we can.

-Elliot

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I can be dogmatic because Im right.

I admire your conviction.

Scriptures do not evolve any more than 'Pride and Prejudice' has evolved. Its still says exactly the same thing now as it did when it was written.

The way in which the persons in the Bible thought about God clearly evolved as Biblical time evolves. Pride and Prejudice encompasses characters who know each other over the course of a few months, if I'm remembering correctly.

Im not talking obout differences in interpretation or understanding. When God says he creates evil, thats pretty much good enough for even an idiot to understand dont you think?

That is what a biblical writer has God say. You are confusing God with the Bible I think. That doesn't make you an idiot. If you truly believe that every quotation in the Bible is actually what God said, that's up to you. I don't think that way. I find it interesting that people in the past had God speak in that way.

What YOU are talking about is cherry-picking the warm fuzzy bits while forgetting the bits that say how God is actually an evil, petty, vindictive s**t.

Why do you want to believe that I forget those things, since I don't? Do you believe in the existence of God? If not, why are you so hung up about the him being an "evil, petty, vindictive ******" If you truly believed in God, I would get how that would really bug you.

Im sure analogies can. Shame we arent talking about analogies isnt it?

What are we talking about exactly? Some people in the past had ideas about God. I find those ideas valuable, and you don't. I don't necessarily accept those ideas as I would accept the fact that my car has four wheels.

I dont want your eamil address or your poxy cassettes. Its an absoloute fact that without original sin there wouldnt be any point in having a saviour would there!?

I was just trying to be nice. Sorry.

Yes, without sin why should people need to be redeemed?

You are welcome to POST information on this forum that you think will prove me wrong but you would because it doesnt exist.

OK. The beginning of Matthew traces the lineage of Jesus through the Old Testament. Matthew 1:23 references Isaiah 7:14. That's chapter 1 of Matthew, the first chapter of the N.T.

If you told me that you had something which would totally prove an idea I had to be incorrect, and offerred it to me, I would appreciate you thinking about me, and take you up on that offer.

I'm sorry, I should keep in mind that people who I don't know personally might be offended by an offer made in good faith.

It will never happen again. If you are a charitable person, please just understand that I was only trying to be nice, and I won't make that mistake again.

You are welcome to hold whatever beliefs you want but if you profess the belief that grapefruits can be used a substitute for a kidney transplant, you better be able to back it up, otherwise people might think you are a bit of a t**t, dont you think? At least scientist dont go around torturing and burning people who disagree with them.

Where in the Bible does it say stuff about kidneys/grapefruits? You're not making things up now, are you?

I don't torture and burn people, I'm sorry you are stuck in the past. I don't blame you for how Stalin acted.

What you actually mean to say is that your ideas of God are straying from the Bible (the word of God),

Yes. The Bible is a human book written by humans, but it is about God and inspired by God. I do have different ideas about God than those in the Bible, but the Bible itself has different ideas about God so that doesn't bother me.

and in doing so, you are basically just making it up as you go along. Whats the point? Why not just invent some completely new religion all for yourself? Oh, sorry, you already have.

Well I am a Catholic, am a content Catholic, and haven't been excommunicated yet.

You seem to have your catchphrase in *making it up as you go along*. That's what we all do, isn't it? There is reality, whatever reality is. Darwin wrote a book. The book didn't change reality. We make things up as we go along, but there is always reality.

I don't think like I did 20 years ago, do you? Of course I'm guessing I'm probably a lot younger than you, I don't know.

-Elliot

Fun2BFree

28th August 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I ....

(SNIP)...if I'm remembering correctly. (SNIP)

I don't think that way. I find it interesting that ...(SNIP)

(SNIP)...

I find those ideas valuable, and you don't. I don't necessarily accept those ideas as I would accept the fact that my car has four wheels.

I do have different ideas about God than those in the Bible...(SNIP)

Well I am a Catholic, am a content Catholic, and haven't been excommunicated yet.

You seem to have your catchphrase in *making it up as you go along*. That's what we all do, isn't it? There is reality, whatever reality is. Darwin wrote a book. The book didn't change reality. We make things up as we go along, but there is always reality.

I don't think like I did 20 years ago, do you? Of course I'm guessing I'm probably a lot younger than you, I don't know.

-Elliot

Like most believers it is all about I..I think, I believe...I I I I I....

Scientific thought is reflected in good scientific writing which is written without reference to the first person..."The evidence shows...etc."

It is about the evidence for which there is NONE to support what poor elliot has decided to believe for himself....Elliot's dismissal of Darwin and misunderstanding of the fundamental flaws in religious thought are typical of those who choose to re-order reality to fit their worldview...Darwin's book was a description of reality and a theory that would include all those real descriptions....

Prior experience with believers suggests elliot will not likely understand how flawed his I centered appoach is.

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

Like most believers it is all about I..I think, I believe...I I I I I....

Scientific thought is reflected in good scientific writing which is written without reference to the first person..."The evidence shows...etc."

Correct. Science expresses itself different than religion/philosophy.

I can only, when talking about religion/philosophy, say what I believe, or sometimes what others believe as well.

It is about the evidence for which there is NONE to support what poor elliot has decided to believe for himself....

It is about the evidence for which there is none to support...

What?

I'm just doing the best I can. I'd look at the abiogenesis evidence but there aren't things like specifics to look at.

Elliot's dismissal of Darwin

Hey now, I like Darwin, and so did Julia. I admire Darwin for his tenacity, he was on the right track, and I'm sure his 10,025th edition would have been better than his 10th.

and misunderstanding of the fundamental flaws in religious thought

It's a fundamentally different kind of thought than yours, in some ways. The name of this forum is "religion and philsophy". Are those two categories the same as, oh I don't know, science? Take the position that religion and philosophy are stupid, that's fine. If so, you are responding to stupidity I guess.

are typical of those who choose to re-order reality to fit their worldview...

Reality is what I see around me, not what happened that nobody has ever seen. I base what I believe on reality. If you were there at the first abiogenesitic moment, fill me in on the details, but I don't think that you were there.

Darwin's book was a description of reality and a theory that would include all those real descriptions....

It's a good book.

Prior experience with believers suggests elliot will not likely understand how flawed his I centered appoach is.

If that's what you believe...

-Elliot

Skeptical Greg

28th August 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Correct. Science expresses itself different than religion/philosophy.

I can only, when talking about religion/philosophy, say what I believe, or sometimes what others believe as well.

..............................

-Elliot

The difference in talking about ' what others believe ' when it comes to science and religion, is that with the former, you can actually prove them wrong ( if they happen to be ), by conducting your own observations and experiments.

I believe this difference is significant.

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

The difference in talking about ' what others believe ' when it comes to science and religion, is that with the former, you can actually prove them wrong ( if they happen to be ), by conducting your own observations and experiments.

I believe this difference is significant.

Very significant. I might be difficult and request that you lay out the background for such proofs. But if you can prove someone wrong, by all means do so.

I think a big problem here is we all have our own issues that guide our ideas and our proofs. Of course you can say that the religious people's issues center around being unreasonable and anti-Ockham's razor and making things up as they go along. I think a more polite way of putting it is we all have different guiding principles. If your guiding principle is uniformitariansim, or gradualism, or materialism, I respect that.

If I'm being difficult because I do not necessarily share those guiding principles, then perhaps I don't belong in a forum where people can't get over that fact.

What do I know? What do I believe? I know what I see around me, or what can be demonstrated to me, stuff like that. What do I believe? The other stuff.

If it comes down to "well that's just what you believe", I've never intentionally attempted to convey anything other than that. This is what I believe, and I'll try to explain the why's and how's if asked, or if anyone cares. But honestly I think you're overestimating me (or underestimating me) if you really think I make any of this stuff up. Maybe people in that past made stuff up. Maybe I might construct an analogy, but it would only serve to explain what is already out there.

That's why I like the idea of this forum. You all, as skeptics, have to deal with all of the believers. I wonder how effective it is to say that an individual, such as myself, makes things up, when what I'm talking about is what people have been talking about for centuries, or for thousands of years. To say that I make stuff up is an insult to everything I've read that has influenced me, and you have to take me for my word when I wonder just exactly how much stuff I make up.

Now, the Bible, you can say that there is a book where a bunch of people made stuff up. And you have an excellent point there. Why would I take a book seriously when people "made stuff up" within its covers? Because it helps me to understand how they thought about issues that I think about. The Bible is useful in that way. Until someone can give me a reason why I should think exactly how every biblical writer thought, I can't see myself doing that. And until someone can convince me that what the Bible says doesn't help me explain what happens in the world around me, then I won't ditch the Bible completely either.

And yes, I did use the word ME. If the Bible meant nothing to me, I would ignore it. Science has to compete for MY attention. I'll take it's explanations for what happens around me and accept all of them (I think). Its explanations for what happened in the past I will treat differently, since those are unverifiable explanations.

I don't revolve around science. Science is a way of thinking, a useful tool, and thinking and use are human activities.

-Elliot

Skeptical Greg

28th August 2003, 10:38 AM

I might add from my personal point of view, I take a lot more pleasure in believing I can prove someone wrong, than in actually doing so.

Sometimes It breaks my heart, when I find the need to destroy some erroneous perception that my son has developed. Fortunately, it more than makes up for it, when I share his joy of unlocking some small bit of truth about our universe.

Yahzi

28th August 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Gregor
I'd like every Xian to admit "my entire religion is simply my personal belief (without evidence)."
Elliot's busy doing just that over in the Slavery thread. But I don't think it's intentional, so don't break out the champagne just yet.

BTW, Roadtoad is a person who deserves your admiration. Ruby, too.

As for the original question, I'll settle for half the Apostles' Creed. Christians have to believe that a) God is, b) God cares, c) there is life after death but it's not just a regular life, d) Jesus died for their sins, e) they had sins that needed dying for.

Fun2BFree

28th August 2003, 07:43 PM

Relgion has no choice but to retreat from science by saying it does not play by the same rules...but of course that is just a lame cop-out for a failed philosophy...and science is a philosophy --it is not as old as religion...it has really only been around for a few hundred years..it is however on the exact same field as religion--it is an approach to the world around and an attempt to understand it...accepting stuff on faith sometimes turns out okay and sometimes it does not...but the way one finds out is by carefully observing what happens and trying to replicate it..with the careful assembly of acquired information---that is the scientific approach...elliot's ridiculous idea that one has to be present at a particular time to take a stab at understanding it in a real and scientific way is what one can only expect from anyone whose though processes go no farther than what he believes...or observes...One observes, makes hypotheses, tests those against more observations etc...the more one observes and tests the more one can see that SO FAR--all available evidence collected by all independent observers points to the truth of materialism and the total failure of a single supernatural explanation ever being found out to be true...ever....supernaturalism is 0 for ever...so far...but wait wait. maybe the supernaturalists will get one on their side just keep an open mind...yeah, right.

triadboy

28th August 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Christians do not have to pretend that the problematic parts don't exist. They are there to demonstrate how the ideas of God developed over time. If you think that is pathetic, why such a negative attitude? People did not think like us thousands of years ago, what is so pathetic about that?

Current biblical archeology demonstrates Israel was not settled the way the OT claims. Of course, it is advantageous for a occupant of a land to spin tales of their conquering forefathers...and the Israelites are no exception. Far from the heroic (ridiculous) tales of Joshua destroying everything in his way to secure the 'promised land', Israel was settled peacefully. It was an insignificant land that based its livelihood on agriculture.

Of course there are problematic parts in the bible. There are sections, from the Israel point of view, that bash the Judeans. Then there are sections from the Judean point of view that bashes Israel.

One can acertain a 'history' of the Jewish texts and realize a significant portion of the bible was written in the reign of King Josiah.

These tales purport to be eyewitness accounts of events that happened hundreds of years before. Many have flagrant anachromisms. They also don't appear to know the land they are speaking about.

There are no problems from a realistic point of view...the bible is a bias pseudo-historical account of a nomadic people.

The NT is a whole different bag of worms.

Originally a Gnostic Jewish mystery religion about a dying god-man named Jesus. (based on Mithraism - the dominant religion at that time.) The idea was to read the outer mystery story about the god-man and after studying this tale and understanding its mythic meaning - then be initiated into the inner mysteries by way of a grand ceremony where the initiate would complete his training. However a portion of the people who were not initiated into the inner secrets of the religion - which would have completed their training - began to believe the outer mystery tale as literal truth! ...much to the shock of the Gnostics! These Gnostics had a great time poking fun at the xians because they were being so ridiculous! (Nevertheless, ignorant people jumped on board the god-man tale that had actually happened!) Soon Literalist Church Fathers like Irenanius and Eusubius began forging documents to seal their domain.

No secular historical documents, that I am aware of, collaborate the NT story.

Matthew made sure the OT and NT matched. But he comically botched some of his forced assertions.

The church fathers continued this deception...and succeeded.

And now we have you continuing the deception.

elliotfc

28th August 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
Originally a Gnostic Jewish mystery religion about a dying god-man named Jesus. (based on Mithraism - the dominant religion at that time.) The idea was to read the outer mystery story about the god-man and after studying this tale and understanding its mythic meaning - then be initiated into the inner mysteries by way of a grand ceremony where the initiate would complete his training. However a portion of the people who were not initiated into the inner secrets of the religion - which would have completed their training - began to believe the outer mystery tale as literal truth! ...much to the shock of the Gnostics! These Gnostics had a great time poking fun at the xians because they were being so ridiculous! (Nevertheless, ignorant people jumped on board the god-man tale that had actually happened!) Soon Literalist Church Fathers like Irenanius and Eusubius began forging documents to seal their domain.

Yes, I've got all of this down already, I collect conspiracy theories, it's a hobby of mine that stretches back a few years.

No secular historical documents, that I am aware of, collaborate the NT story.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/main.html

Of course, as a conspiracy theorist you will explain all these away as part of the great conspiracy.

The church fathers continued this deception...and succeeded.

And now we have you continuing the deception.

That's how conspiracies work. Keep fighting though, never give up.

-Elliot

c4ts

28th August 2003, 11:00 PM

Christians are supposed to believe what they are told to believe, by the Bible and by interpretations of it. Never mind if those interpretations make no frikkin' sense, PREDESTINATION IS REAL BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, got carried away on that last part.

Shinytop

28th August 2003, 11:22 PM

I am an agnostic bordering on atheist. That said I am happy for anybody whose belief gives them comfort in this world that all too often puts you in situations where you need comfort, where you need support. IF the religious find comfort and strength from their faith who are we to take that away from them?

I fight religion in anything involving government yet I find it very reassuring to know that the military provides ministers from all faiths and even provides headstones honoring the religion of the slain soldier.

Now when you attack the religion of a religious man what are you going to replace it with? Will you be there next week when a horrible accident wipes out his family? Will you be there when needs reassurance before he enters the hospital for a life threatening procedure?

I try to practice live and let live. If they want to believe that the Easter Bunny is the first apostle of the Animals are God religion I don't care and will let them practice as long as they wish.

Now please notice I said live and let live. If they keep their practice of their religion between themselves and anybody else who asks I am quite oblivious to them. But if they want to bring religion into my life by law or morality BS I will fight them tooth and nail and damn them to whatever hell is reserved for the ultra religious. In the meantime WTF is it with religions being exempt from taxes? Pisses me off.

evildave

29th August 2003, 02:53 AM

Come to think of it, some of them don't even need to care about the hippy guy.

All I really go by is "I'm a Christian". Or they can identify by denomination, such as "I'm a Baptist".

They can believe little orange men will take them up in flying saucers and give them candy singing curious songs, but as long as they said "Christian", who am I to question?

triadboy

29th August 2003, 08:20 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elliotfc
Yes, I've got all of this down already, I collect conspiracy theories, it's a hobby of mine that stretches back a few years.

Conspiracy? Surely you don't deny things like Mark 16:9-20, Pauls Timothy 1 and 2 and Titus (and others) didn't appear until the 2nd century. No conspiracy....just forgeries.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/main.html

This site is a pitiful attempt to provide some kind of historical reference for a myth. Many of these are known forgeries - acknowledged by xians. Why is "Chrestus" immediately recognized as 'Christ'? I think that would be "Christos" Of course, xians can write about Jesus hundreds of years after his supposed death, but surely even you must admit - there is nothing written by Jesus and there is nothing written by anyone during his reportedly amazing life about him. All these historians, and they never heard of him or ventured out to see him? You'd think someone pulling miracles out of his ass would be something to investigate.

That's how conspiracies work. Keep fighting though, never give up.

:-) Don't worry about that. When I re-read my Masters Thesis on Christianity - I realize how soft I was at the time.

You need to read the life of Mithras. Read some Joseph Campbell. Learn about Mythology.

elliotfc

29th August 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by triadboy
You need to read the life of Mithras. Read some Joseph Campbell. Learn about Mythology. [/B]

Well if there is one thing I'm obsessed about it is mythology. And I've read Campbell's books and I think he has proven that people like to tell stories and enjoy hearing stories and that the activities of individuals and their struggles are compelling. His pantheism is not persuasive, and he has ridiculous ideas such as the Judeo/Christian mindset considering nature to be evil.

I don't know what I haven't read about the life of Mithras, but feel free to supply me with books or weblinks.

If you believe the whole of Christianity to be a conspiracy, I don't know what to really say to you. If Jesus didn't exist, did any of the characters in the gospels exist? Were Christians killed in the 1st century A.D.? Which men most likely concocted all of these lies?

Jesus is an historical figure, and Mithras is a mythological figure. The Zoroastrian religion never placed him at a specific point in history. Since I believe in a supernatural reality, and a demonic reality, I don't find it surprising that earlier cultic religions would have elements of what would eventually come to pass.

Nobody worships Mithras anymore by that name. You, I take it, believe that Christianity co-opted the figure, changed his name, inserted him into a particular moment of history, and concocted a most fantastic history of lies that has managed to be accepted the world over as factual occurrence. Congratulations on figuring this out 2000 years after the fact. I wish you the best in defeating the conspiracy.

People knew a guy, things happened to the guy that they knew, these people were killed over what they said about a guy that they knew. I don't know of anyone who claimed to know Mithras.

-Elliot

Skeptical Greg

29th August 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

................
Jesus is an historical figure,

-Elliot

I'll have to dig up some links to past threads on this.

I will say the evidence for a historical Jesus is pretty flimsy..

( please don't reply with an ' appeal to popularity '.. )

triadboy

29th August 2003, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elliotfc
If you believe the whole of Christianity to be a conspiracy, I don't know what to really say to you.

You keep saying 'conspiracy', which is a lovely codeword to make me out a whacko. There is no conspiracy. Once the Gospels were written, this mythological character (Jesus) was placed in an historical context. Then a branch of a Jewish mystery religion started believing the myth was reality.

If Jesus didn't exist, did any of the characters in the gospels exist?

If the story was cast into an historical setting, of course they would try to nail down some of the characters. But the different gospels use different characters. They can't seem to agree on the names of the apostles. They don't agree on which historical timeframe, Jesus was born in. Josephus NEVER mentions the killing of the innocents - I'm sure you are aware Josephus hated Herod and would surely have mentioned something so atrocious. There are obvious mythological renderings in the NT: virgin birth, wise men following a star, miracles, resurrections, etc.

Were Christians killed in the 1st century A.D.?

Are you asking if Gnostic Xians were killed in the 1st century? Because Xianity as you know it, did not come into existence until the end of the 2nd century

Which men most likely concocted all of these lies?

Your glorious church fathers (Irenaeus, Eusubius, etc) seem to be the vortex of hardening.

Jesus is an historical figure

It is not clear he WAS an historical figure.

Since I believe in a supernatural reality, and a demonic reality, I don't find it surprising that earlier cultic religions would have elements of what would eventually come to pass.

Wow! That's what your church fathers said too!! They said the pre-Jesus mythic tales of god-men, born of a virgin, who performed miracles, who were wrongly accused, killed and resurrected after 3 days were planted by Satan to confuse us when the real Jesus came to be! I found it amazing when I read that - and I'm amazed now. (mmmm....demonic reality - You are eaten up with it, aren't you?)

Nobody worships Mithras anymore by that name.

But we still celebrate his birthday in latter December, don't we?

You, I take it, believe that Christianity co-opted the figure, changed his name, inserted him into a particular moment of history, and concocted a most fantastic history of lies that has managed to be accepted the world over as factual occurrence.

I believe Gnostic Xianity had the figure with the name. It was Literalist Xianity that inserted him into an historical moment and concocted the history of lies.

Congratulations on figuring this out 2000 years after the fact.

This is the time I am alive...I couldn't have done it any earlier.

I wish you the best in defeating the conspiracy.

It will defeat itself in time. It won't happen in our lifetimes, but eventually an awakening will occur where childish beliefs will be cast aside.

People knew a guy, things happened to the guy that they knew,

But nobody knew Jesus first hand. The line should be: "People knew a guy, who knew a guy who talked about this guy who..."

these people were killed over what they said about a guy that they knew.

So say your church fathers

I don't know of anyone who claimed to know Mithras.

I agree. Mithras was a mythological god-man. I don't know of anyone who claimed to know Jesus.