The World's Most Offensive Religion(WBC) [Archive]

BrokeProphet

2008-02-22, 20:53

Now I KNOW you've read the Bible, how you can say that is beyond me.

It shows how completely retarded christianity is when retards practice it.

I have read a good deal of the bible both as a theist and as an atheist. Have you ever stood outside the meme of christianity and read it?

The bible does have a lot about love and giving and kindness. The parts most christian groups choose to gloss over involve: Stoning whores and faggots, having multiple wives and owning slaves.

The WBC actually practices what God and Jesus teach in the bible. They are correctly practicing Christianity. You should commend them for it and for their bravery, and try to be less hypocritical yourselves.

Meanwhile, America finalized the deal whereby she sold her soul to the sodomites -- following the example of Sodom, the seven nations of the Canaanites, ancient Israel, and all the doomed empires of the past. Nor is there any possibility of relief, because sodomites -- by definition -- are incapable of repenting, because they're proud of their sin -- will not even admit it's a sin -- and are therefore wholly given up by God.

Ancient Israel ignored God's warning about following the perversions of the doomed sodomite Canaanites -- and Israel also perished. That warning is found at Lev. 18:24-28; to wit: "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things (sodomy, incest, adultery, bestiality); for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you...That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you." Even as God today -- through Westboro Baptist Church -- warns America.

And, as Christ warned doomed Jerusalem, even so WBC -- warns doomed America: "O America, America, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee (translate: thou that persecutest WBC), how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matt. 23:37-38.

Masero

2008-02-22, 21:06

BrokeProphet

2008-02-22, 21:38

You do realise that most of the stories of people being stoned were Christians being martyred? Or Religious JEWISH zealots trying to uphold Jewish law... not Christians stoning faggots, adulterers and such... in fact... When asked what to do with a whore who was caught in the act of adultery and brought to Christ during one of his lessons, by the Pharisees, where he was asked what they should do to her for being a whore... Christ said Let he that has no sin cast the first stone... Which kinda fucked all of them since he didn't throw the first stone.

Christianity didn't exist until after Christ died... which means most of what's in the Bible (i.e. everything before the pauline epistles) happened before Christianity started. You couldn't use the Bible to show that they did any of what you said, BrokeProphet. Also... The sins of Solomon don't equate to the sins of an entire religion, especially when he lived WAY before the times of said religion.

Leviticus

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy

17:2-5 If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... stone them with stones, till they die.

WBC has the right of it...........God does hate fags.

Are you telling me Christians don't believe in the old testement? OF COURSE NOT. They believe in certain parts of the old testement. They pick and choose what they want making them...............everybody together now.....................hypocrites.

WBC is a lot of things, but the only thing I am concerned with is their apparent lack of, or at least a lesser extent, hypocrisy.

Masero

2008-02-22, 22:16

Leviticus

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy

17:2-5 If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... stone them with stones, till they die.

WBC has the right of it...........God does hate fags.

Are you telling me Christians don't believe in the old testement? OF COURSE NOT. They believe in certain parts of the old testement. They pick and choose what they want making them...............everybody together now.....................hypocrites.

WBC is a lot of things, but the only thing I am concerned with is their apparent lack of, or at least a lesser extent, hypocrisy.

Uhm... retard... re-read what I wrote.

If you actually were interested in the Bible at all, you'd realise that the first 5 books (genesis, exodus, LEVITICUS, numbers, DEUTERONOMY) are all Hebrew Law, which doesn't apply to Christians, but rather to Hebrews, before Christ's blood was shed as the ultimate sacrifice. Key words being BEFORE CHRIST'S BLOOD WAS SHED. I.e. Before Christianity could even exist. Are you telling me the Old Testament, which was used during the life of Christ, wasn't written until after Christ died? Don't be so silly, you marvelous cunt.

But that's cool... you don't have to actually learn anything about the Bible and it's history, you can just keep spewing forth like an imbecile and no one will be any wiser because people don't care for right answers anymore, they just like to jump on hate bandwagons.

Christians believe that the Old Testament predicted the coming of Christ, layed out the history of God's people, told of the creation, and gave guidelines for Hebrews. Why do you think that the message in the New Testament is to Love everyone? It's becuase The mantle of Sin had been taken off the world.

-ScreamingElectron-

2008-02-22, 23:10

Bible and it's history

Roffle. As if the bible knows it's own history. It is so full of historical contradtictions of fact with in it's own pages. I can show you plenty of examples.

Also, did god really make a shit load of laws for the jews, then decide those did't apply to the christians? If so, your God may be antisemitic.

godfather89

2008-02-23, 04:13

... Are you telling me Christians don't believe in the old testement? OF COURSE NOT. They believe in certain parts of the old testement. They pick and choose what they want making them...............everybody together now.....................hypocrites....

Oh, your poorly mistaken... The Christian Gnostic's such as Valentians believed that large part of the old testament is most evil and to be ignored, The New Testament has been reworked however, whatever words came forth from Jesus are what Christians should take and take solely -- None of this Old Testament... Theres a reason why its called the old testament, its an old contract no longer valid. However, Christians go to it for many things... I went to it solely for the wisdom like Proverbs and Psalms... The rest was unimportant to me since I felt Genesis had it wrong and the hatred in the old testament certainly did not represent the loving god of the new testament... I found them seperate not the same!

Of course the biggest difference between the Gnostic and Christian is the awareness that religious texts are allegorical, metaphorical and symbolic NOT LITERAL WORD FOR WORD TRUTHS

-ScreamingElectron-

2008-02-23, 15:40

So god is bi-polar? I mean if the bible is the word of god and what not, why did he go from ass hole to loving?

Masero

2008-02-23, 16:23

Why does everyone humanize God?

Why is it so impossible to think that something that created us could possibly be multi-faceted and be able to have differing emotions at the same time? If God is real there's no reason to make it so that we could fully comprehend him. If he created us to fully understand him then he'd be obsolete because we could just do it ourselves.

-ScreamingElectron-

2008-02-23, 18:41

Masero

2008-02-23, 19:09

You call it multi faceted, psychologists call it bi-polar disorder.

Why couldn't we comprehend a god? Is God that much of a pompous ass?

The abrahamic god is pretty much the only God that can not be understood or have feelings that people can comprehend.

Hinduism, the ancient greek/roman/mesopatamian/sumerian/myan/hawaiin, ect; their gods atleast make sense.

It's a God... who's logic and abilites greatly exceed ours. When you humanize a deity it will, of course, seem to make more sense and be understood. I don't think a deity, even in making us in his/her/their image would have a reason to make us as good as them.

And again, psychaitrists are humans... you're still once again humanizing a deity. This is making me beat a dead horse.

SomeLowLife

2008-02-23, 19:39

Why does everyone humanize God?

Because were human.

Man is god. God is man. Man made god.

-ScreamingElectron-

2008-02-23, 20:18

This is making me beat a dead horse.

Pagan!, But the logic of 'God can not be understood' is often just a way to explain the actions that we don't understand, mostly because the event was horrofic.

SomeLowLife's post is rather deep, I never looked at that way :D

BrokeProphet

2008-02-23, 21:06

Christians believe that the Old Testament predicted the coming of Christ, layed out the history of God's people, told of the creation, and gave guidelines for Hebrews. Why do you think that the message in the New Testament is to Love everyone? It's becuase The mantle of Sin had been taken off the world.

Wow, ALL christians believe that the old testament predicted the coming of christ, history of God's people, creation, and hebrew law, and that's it? There are no major sects of christianity who believe old testament hebrew laws should be taken literally and still apply today? (yes there are) Have there ever been any major groups of christians who believe certain old hebrew laws should apply? *(yes there have been)

Please dispute the above, so I can show you for the truly ignorant cunt you are. If you don't then feel free to accept the following and stop arguing straight out of your ass with generalized nonsense.

Christians believe and have believed whatever parts of the old testament they see fit to believe in a given time period. Christians differ on which parts of the old testament they believe to be true, on a sect by sect basis.

It's a God... who's logic and abilites greatly exceed ours. When you humanize a deity it will, of course, seem to make more sense and be understood. I don't think a deity, even in making us in his/her/their image would have a reason to make us as good as them.

Well shit, God does a good job of coming off as an abusive father figure in his special book in which are found HIS OWN words affiriming his human nature.

Of course this God apparently completely changes from a vengeful, jealous, angry, wrathful infinitely powerful and highly active in human affairs, to a completely hidden invisible all loving gentle mysterious man in the sky in the Bible part II.

But I know I should not question the motives of a creature who exists SOLEY in a theists imagination. Seriously, get fucked. I suggest mommy.

godfather89

2008-02-24, 01:17

Masero

2008-02-24, 06:47

What if the true definition of Christian has been replaced by this fundamentalist version of being Christian?

"If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian," he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded. This is the way it happens to one when he experiences a mystery." - Gospel of Phillip

Those who "went to the water and recieved nothing" are most of the "Christians" today... People you should start considering putting quotes around the word Christian because most think they are but really arent...

Ya, you're pretty much right except for the whole "Everyone else here arguing is being hypocritical, saying that I'm generalizing when I'm taking the main idea of the christian religion and showing them that they're focusing on the wrong points".

Instead of focusing on petty little shit, you should focus on the fact that being Christ-like is to love and be loved. You're gonna go find the crazy cracked out episcopalian church or the cult-sects of Mormonism and Jehovah's witness to prove me wrong b/c you pick the wrong things to make points about. And Israel had chances to get their shit together quite a few times before he sent them off into bondage. He's a God of Wrath because the ultimate sacrifice was not yet given, so instead of having a substitute you have to actually give your own offerings up and ask for forgiveness for your sins because he had not sacrificed a part of his self yet.

TruthWielder

2008-02-24, 10:50

Wow, ALL christians believe that the old testament predicted the coming of christ, history of God's people, creation, and hebrew law, and that's it? There are no major sects of christianity who believe old testament hebrew laws should be taken literally and still apply today? (yes there are) Have there ever been any major groups of christians who believe certain old hebrew laws should apply? *(yes there have been)

Please dispute the above, so I can show you for the truly ignorant cunt you are. If you don't then feel free to accept the following and stop arguing straight out of your ass with generalized nonsense.

Christians believe and have believed whatever parts of the old testament they see fit to believe in a given time period. Christians differ on which parts of the old testament they believe to be true, on a sect by sect basis.

Well shit, God does a good job of coming off as an abusive father figure in his special book in which are found HIS OWN words affiriming his human nature.

Of course this God apparently completely changes from a vengeful, jealous, angry, wrathful infinitely powerful and highly active in human affairs, to a completely hidden invisible all loving gentle mysterious man in the sky in the Bible part II.

But I know I should not question the motives of a creature who exists SOLEY in a theists imagination. Seriously, get fucked. I suggest mommy.

Relax a bit.

Now let me ask a question. What makes one a Christian? The answer is believing in the divinity of, salvation through, and adhering to the word of Jesus Christ. The main word being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everything else is just commentary. Belief in the laws set up by the Old testament a christian does not make.

AngryFemme

2008-02-24, 14:41

Supersessionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism).

In short, interpreting God's present relationship with Christians as superceding his (past) relationship with Jews.
Old Testament vs. New Testament.

I believe the Bible has been used as a tool historically to promote separatism and divide people into many God-fearing factions that all claim to have interpreted God's will towards human beings in different lights. Christians believe that the New Testament is a new covenant with God that doesn't hold the sons and daughters accountable for the inequities or sins of their mothers and fathers. The teachings of the New Testament fit better in modern times and Christians view their beloved God as merciful, graceful and forgiving - a far cry from the God of the Old Testament who was jealous, wrathful and punishing.

The Old Testament paved the way for the New Testament, and there is scripture within the Old Testament that prepares the reader for what will eventually be regarded as "new". The 10 commandments given on Mount Sinai to Moses are regarded as the inerrant commandments of God. Even within the Old Testament, a kinder, gentler God is illustrated. As the myth goes: when God got fed up with the world and decided to destroy everything, he remembered Noah, spared him and his family and his creatures, making the Ark of the Covenant. It's still in line with the original commandments told to Moses on Mount Sinai. Even the catholics have their own version of the "new" Ark of the Covenant (Our Lady The Holy Virgin). The New Testament and the birth of Jesus Christ is definitely a more appealing read than the Old Testament. It's definitely more easily applied to modern times, and J.C. is definitely a more approachable figure than the angry, in-your-face God of the O.T.

Similarly, other non-Christian and non-Judaism religions have their own versions of the Covenant of God. It's been reinterpreted countless times in the past, and is still happening in the present, modern day with different faiths practicing their own versions of God's law.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That's one creed I live by, but I don't need to call myself a Christian in order to adhere to that moral standard. This altruistic endeavor is something that becomes quite obvious to developed human beings living in large societies where constantly fucking over your peers is going to get you nowhere.

Everything else is just commentary

Millions of other religious people would vehemently disagree with that. What you dismiss as "commentary" is a large portion of the Bible that others believe in literally and with great enthusiasm. I dismiss the entire Bible (both Old and New Testament) as "commentary", not literal truths, but parables, myths and metaphor that do nothing more than point out the obvious: Do not kill, Stealing is wrong, Honesty is more favorable than dishonesty, etc... All things that even primitive civilizations all over the globe can relate to, with or without religion present to spell it out for them.

Belief in the laws set up by the Old testament a christian does not make.

I'm pretty sure modern Christians have regard for the 10 commandments, even if they do view it in light of Noah's laid-back version under a more forgiving, merciful God. I'm pretty sure most Christians subscribe to "God created the heavens and the earth", which is found in Genesis of the Old Testament.

Biblical canons have been debated and agreed upon by religious "authorities" of different faiths. This in itself is man taking the biblical interpretations of the Bible and cherry-picking what they believe to be the intended doctrine God set forth for mankind.

In short, BrokeProphet is making a good point - we've been rewriting the Bible for centuries, even though the text has remained the same. If this were untrue, there wouldn't be dozens and dozens of denominations out there all claiming to be the right way to interpret God's inerrant word.

People are going to interpret what best suits them. Today, we've got new-age spiritualists who borrow from the same old text, morphing it to fit with today's modern times. We've got godfather here educating us on Gnosticism (which arguably pre-dates Christianity), but is yet another religious movement (though somewhat more diverse), introducing the demiurge and reshaping the human relationship with the Abrahamic God through their own myths and metaphor.

It's not too far of a stretch of the imagination to believe that without any Biblical instruction at all, mankind would still favor the "do unto others", "thou shalt not kill" etc. that we credit God for instilling into us. Without God, we wouldn't revert back to acting like uncivilized animals.

ninja_turtle

2008-02-24, 14:45

Relax a bit.

Now let me ask a question. What makes one a Christian? The answer is believing in the divinity of, salvation through, and adhering to the word of Jesus Christ. The main word being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everything else is just commentary. Belief in the laws set up by the Old testament a christian does not make.

Why do you take that to be what makes someone a christian, that is only one small piece of the bible. What makes you so wise as to know the mind of a god free to pick and choose from his teachings.

I personally think that what makes a christian a christian is being proactive in the stoning of gays.

As we both have picked and chose based on nothing but are own opinion both must be equally valid arguments for defining a christian.

Also Jesus refers repeatedly to the old testament being the word of god and so by your own argument must be obeyed by any true christian.

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
"Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)
"the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3)

Also he noted that the scripture can and will never change
"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18)

Also he critisises people who haven't read the old testment
"Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31)
"Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2)

If your going to believe in a religion, please at least try to be consistent.

JesuitArtiste

2008-02-24, 14:57

Why do you take that to be what makes someone a christian, that is only one small piece of the bible. What makes you so wise as to know the mind of a god free to pick and choose from his teachings.

I personnaly think that what makes a christian a christian is being proactive in the stoning of gays.

As we both have picked and chose based on nothing but are own opinion both must be equally valid arguments for defining a christian.

Not quite, truth wielder has included a small little nugget of evidence to support his views.

Now, whay don't you give it a try, find some evidence for your belief that a christian is someone who is pro-active in stoning gays.

AngryFemme

2008-02-24, 15:07

Not quite, truth wielder has included a small little nugget of evidence to support his views.

Now, whay don't you give it a try, find some evidence for your belief that a christian is someone who is pro-active in stoning gays.

If Wielder's small nugget of evidence is citing the scripture "do unto others...", then Leviticus offers much scripture as to how we should deal with sexual fornicators:

20:9 “‘If anyone 17 curses his father and mother 18 he must be put to death. He has cursed his father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 19 20:10 If a man 20 commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, 21 both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 20:11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. 22 Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 23 20:12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; 24 their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, 25 the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, 26 it is lewdness. 27 Both he and they must be burned to death, 28 so there is no lewdness in your midst. 20:15 If a man has sexual intercourse 29 with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 20:16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, 30 you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Regardless of which Testament they cite, they are both borrowing from "small little nuggets of evidence" as propagated in the Holy Bible. There are many Christians who would take offense at being called non-Christians just because they rely on certain scripture of the Old Testament to coincide with their loving, merciful J.C. in the New Testament.

ninja_turtle

2008-02-24, 15:18

Ok here is my small nugget.

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Btw I am atheist I was just citing that argument as an example.

Masero

2008-02-24, 15:31

Seriously... N_T, we've already had this discussion. Leviticus was written before Christ was born, so therefore you can't say these are CHRISTIAN laws. they were HEBREW LAWS. (Also, sidenote: it's part of the pentatuech, which is what they called their HEBREW LAW).

When truthwielder said your beliefs in the law doesn't make you a Christian he was dead on precise. All it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Christ, part of God, was sent to earth where he taught the principles of love, then he died on a cross and rose again 3 days later having taken the ultimate sacrifice for mankind.

The rest, to this day, is petty squabbling over how we should preserve the law and which laws are able to be used in this day and age. They're guidelines to GENTILES. They are law to HEBREWS that practice judaism.

The reason TW can say that is because it's true. The rest of the Bible is good to have, but you can go your entire life never reading a bible and believe that God sent his son to die for our sins and that because of that sacrifice you have a chance to be written in the book of lambs and go to Heaven. Christianity is a Faith-Only or Works are byproduct of faith religion. (And this is gonna be great b/c all of you are gonna go get "contradicting verses") But here's why that won't work... the Change by becoming a Christian results in your will to want to do works because of the faith you have.

Now I know you're gonna bring up Catholics and how they have the sacraments and what-not, but I think that the schism between protestants and catholics is a big enough strain to where you can honestly separate Catholicism and Christianity because they teach different ways to get to Heaven. That's not to say there aren't Christian Catholics who just practice for the ritual.

Also, N_T, in Romans Paul is writing a letter to another Church, showing them what they've done wrong. Stop being a cunt and use things in context. If you're gonna argue the Bible, at least understand the situation in which things are said before you spew. The Book of Ecclesiastes has alot of Crazy-Talk in it but that's because Solomon wrote it at the end of his life, when his mind was warped after realising he tried EVERYTHING and nothing fufilled him because he did it all for the wrong motives. Solomon had asked God for wisdom to rule his kingdom and he still decided to try out the wrong things, to see how they felt. God used Solomon to prove that even with superior wisdom, he was still lacking when he walked away from God.

Masero

2008-02-24, 15:37

Regardless of which Testament they cite, they are both borrowing from "small little nuggets of evidence" as propagated in the Holy Bible. There are many Christians who would take offense at being called non-Christians just because they rely on certain scripture of the Old Testament to coincide with their loving, merciful J.C. in the New Testament.

Of course it's not our place to judge the heart of whether someone is a Christian or non-Christian, but if you're gonna call someone else's faith out because of what parts of the Bible they religiously hold onto and what parts they don't then you're probably not in the best place with God yourself, ya?

It's not our place to go "You're not a Christian because you follow the pentateuch" But... if we can clearly see someone teaching something other than love and being Christ-filled then we have an obligation to tell people where they're making a giant error. The two biggest things to be preached for Christians should always be the tenats of Love and the Salvation through Christ. Anything else is fluff that causes separation and unrest between those who want to label everything and put everything in a nice small box of denominations. I don't think it's a big deal if someone dances, speaks in tongues, doesn't dance, follows the same routine for church service everyday, whatever... as long as their heart is in it 100% and they're not trying to bring others down by doing it or put on a show to better themselves.

ninja_turtle

2008-02-24, 15:48

Seriously... N_T, we've already had this discussion. Leviticus was written before Christ was born, so therefore you can't say these are CHRISTIAN laws. they were HEBREW LAWS. (Also, sidenote: it's part of the pentatuech, which is what they called their HEBREW LAW).

When truthwielder said your beliefs in the law doesn't make you a Christian he was dead on precise. All it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Christ, part of God, was sent to earth where he taught the principles of love, then he died on a cross and rose again 3 days later having taken the ultimate sacrifice for mankind.

The rest, to this day, is petty squabbling over how we should preserve the law and which laws are able to be used in this day and age. They're guidelines to GENTILES. They are law to HEBREWS that practice judaism.

The reason TW can say that is because it's true. The rest of the Bible is good to have, but you can go your entire life never reading a bible and believe that God sent his son to die for our sins and that because of that sacrifice you have a chance to be written in the book of lambs and go to Heaven. Christianity is a Faith-Only or Works are byproduct of faith religion. (And this is gonna be great b/c all of you are gonna go get "contradicting verses") But here's why that won't work... the Change by becoming a Christian results in your will to want to do works because of the faith you have.

Now I know you're gonna bring up Catholics and how they have the sacraments and what-not, but I think that the schism between protestants and catholics is a big enough strain to where you can honestly separate Catholicism and Christianity because they teach different ways to get to Heaven. That's not to say there aren't Christian Catholics who just practice for the ritual.

Also, N_T, in Romans Paul is writing a letter to another Church, showing them what they've done wrong. Stop being a cunt and use things in context. If you're gonna argue the Bible, at least understand the situation things are said before you spew. The Book of Ecclesiastes has alot of Crazy-Talk in it but that's because Solomon wrote it at the end of his life, when his mind was warped after realising he tried EVERYTHING and nothing fufilled him because he did it all for the wrong motives. Solomon had asked God for wisdom to rule his kingdom and he still decided to try out the wrong things, to see how they felt. God used Solomon to prove that even with superior wisdom, he was still lacking when he walked away from God.

Yes all you need is to believe in Jesus and that what he says is devine.

He said that the old testament is holy law in many many places in the bible and that it can never be revoked. Therefore to be a christian you must (by proxy) except that the old testament is holy law.

If your gonna say that it may be law but as a christian you don't have to follow it, then it seems to me a somewhat pointless endevor. I dont think its a stretch of the imagination that when jesus said it's law he meant it was valid.

AngryFemme

2008-02-24, 16:01

Did Jesus ever condemn the God of the Old Testament? He used his own style to preach the grace, love and forgiveness of God, but I believe it was necessary for him to amass followers to God by promoting a more loving, forgiving slant versus a rigid, wrathful stance. Jesus didn't create a new God out of thin air, he just portrayed God's will in a more acceptable, appealing light than the scribes of the Old Testament.

Fundamentalists and Moderate Christians alike worship the same God, but through different lenses. There's a conservative approach, and a more liberal approach. How we "preach" Christianity to one another is always going to be dependent on how the individual regards God's intent on a personal level.

The two biggest things to be preached for Christians should always be the tenats of Love and the Salvation through Christ. Anything else is fluff that causes separation and unrest between those who want to label everything and put everything in a nice small box of denominations.

Christianity IS a label, a nice small box that focuses on the salavation through J.C. as the ultimate way to go. The presence of different denominations within Christianity is proof positive of the fact that human beings are going to derive different truths from the same text. What some Christians deem as "fluff", other Christians deem as non-fluff. There is a diversity among some Christian sects, and that diversity is due to the fact that the New Testament is just as open to interpretation as the Old Testament.

Vanhalla

2008-02-24, 16:45

Jesus Christ. Many individuals immediately fall into their preconceived notions of what this means based on their upbringing or religious background. The perspectives people have had on the teachings of Jesus have been varied, even Christians are not in complete agreement of the meaning. These disagreements have resulted in countless wars, charges of heresy, and disunification. The Edgar Cayce material, however, offers an approach that suggests there is a way of looking at Jesus' life in a manner that unifies all of humankind rather than dividing it.

Much of humankind has forgotten its true birth right as a child of a loving God because of our focus on material things in life. "From Cayce's perspective, we are not simply physical bodies, instead we are spiritual beings who are having a physical experience entailing personal growth and development. Many individuals have incorrectly assumed that the goal of being in the earth is to simply reach heaven, find enlightenment, or somehow "get out of the earth." And yet, this is a perspective quite different from that contained in the Cayce material. Instead, Cayce believed that as children of God, our mission was to somehow bring spirit into the earth."

If you want to hear more read this.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/about_ec/cayce_on/christ/

Christ is not a person, Christ is a state of consciousness.

JesuitArtiste

2008-02-24, 17:40

Yes all you need is to believe in Jesus and that what he says is devine.

He said that the old testament is holy law in many many places in the bible and that it can never be revoked. Therefore to be a christian you must (by proxy) except that the old testament is holy law.

If your gonna say that it may be law but as a christian you don't have to follow it, then it seems to me a somewhat pointless endevor. I dont think its a stretch of the imagination that when jesus said it's law he meant it was valid.

Romans 13:8-11 "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the filfillment of the law."

Jesus when asked the greatest commandment gave the answer that to Love God is the greatest command, and the second like it, to love your neighbour. I believe he says something along the lines of all the law and words of the prophets hang on these two commands.

Also, why can't reason play a part in reading the Bible? Jesus seemed to have a healthy disregard for the law, what would previously be considered unclean is said to be clean by Christ. It seems to me that it is Man that is important, and the laws secondary, 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath' [Mark 2:27-29].

In Timothy, Paul writes ,'The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.'

Y'know what.... I don't even remember writing most of this post Or why... This is what a lack of sleep gets you :( I'm sure it's bullshit, but it's typed now, so I can't go back :rolleyes:

BrokeProphet

2008-02-24, 20:16

So we have established what it takes to be a Christian (Life, Death, Resurrection belief) and that everything else is fluff. All sects draw from the fucked up ass backwards hebrew laws found in the OT. They just pick which laws suit them best at the time, and forget the rest.

So who are any of you to bash the CHRISTIANS of WBC? They are simply practicing what most other sects of xtians have forgotten or choose to gloss over. It seems to me that the WBC are the only sect God would say "Fucking awesome, they got it, they understand why I destroyed Soddom and are trying to prevent it"

If all it takes to be a Christian is a belief in Jesus and the life, death, resurrection, then the WBC are a the brethren of every single other christian out there. They simply take a more literal approach to the bible. They include every stupid little bit of law and information from the bible. I think they are getting more out of this holy book than any other religion.

Masero

2008-02-24, 20:54

AngryFemme

2008-02-24, 21:09

TruthWielder

2008-02-24, 22:16

WBC never claimed that Jesus hated fags. They claim God hates fags. If they took a literal interpretation of Leviticus, they'd be justified in believing that God condemns homosexuality, so they believe that they should, too. What they've done is bypassed middle management and went straight to the Almighty Source.

In this instance, it would have served humanity better for them to have the buck stop at the middle man. But I bet they love Jesus, too. They just unfortunately don't model their behavior after his, in all aspects.

All they do is literally takes things out of context from the old testament and use it as justification for their methods of creating shock value. "God Hates Fags" supposedly justified by the one line that says gays should die, for example, is utterly perverse. It says many times in the bible that god loves all his children, sinners or not. And just because you break "Gods law" does not mean that God hates you. God simply does not hate in that sense. We are all sinners. Those laws were written as laws for the ancient jewish society. Nothing more. If you want to argue that God does not approve of homsexuality, well ok. But arguing that God hates gays? Thats a non issue.

Poor WBC people...if only someone could lovingly and patiently open those peoples eyes.

Masero

2008-02-25, 03:22

I just saw a study this evening, I wish I had kept the info on it but the biggest thing that turns people off from Christians is the fact that they're anti-homosexual... but not that they think homosexuality is a sin, but the fact that they slander, attack, abuse, and completely excommunicate gays from (read: MAINLY BAPTIST) churches.

godfather89

2008-02-25, 03:26

Ya, you're pretty much right except for the whole "Everyone else here arguing is being hypocritical, saying that I'm generalizing when I'm taking the main idea of the christian religion and showing them that they're focusing on the wrong points".

Instead of focusing on petty little shit, you should focus on the fact that being Christ-like is to love and be loved. You're gonna go find the crazy cracked out episcopalian church or the cult-sects of Mormonism and Jehovah's witness to prove me wrong b/c you pick the wrong things to make points about. And Israel had chances to get their shit together quite a few times before he sent them off into bondage. He's a God of Wrath because the ultimate sacrifice was not yet given, so instead of having a substitute you have to actually give your own offerings up and ask for forgiveness for your sins because he had not sacrificed a part of his self yet.

I dont believe God of the OT is God of the NT... Plus, to be Christ-like is to Love but not neccesarily be loved back. Look at Christ himself, people loved him but even his enemies (who we were told by him to love) did not love back! The powers that be are not going to love you! Yet, your told to LOVE w/o getting anything back in return...

Masero

2008-02-25, 03:41

I dont believe God of the OT is God of the NT... Plus, to be Christ-like is to Love but not neccesarily be loved back. Look at Christ himself, people loved him but even his enemies (who we were told by him to love) did not love back! The powers that be are not going to love you! Yet, your told to LOVE w/o getting anything back in return...

Selfless love, being a servant, showing people that you care about them as a human being whether they're black, white, gay, straight, theist, atheist, is what the message is about.

You're right... you're not promised love back... you're promised a spot in Heaven. If Heaven is a real place, I think it's okay to weigh the differences and go w/o love. But that's not to say you won't be loved. Your actions alone will make SOME people go "Wow, that's really cool... you're doing something I definitely couldn't do". If everyone spent time loving each other instead of trying to dissect everything about everyone then this world would probably be in a better place. Yah, it sounds like hippy-shit but it's true. I'm not saying that you should become a swelled up vagina, spewing sunshine and happiness on everything... but it doesn't hurt to love people. It's hard to love someone when they've been raped at a young age or something like that... but just because you love someone doesn't mean you have to fuck them. Love is a dead word because we've used it for the wrong reason.

The message is love. Your life should be filled with Faith, Hope, and Love... the greatest of these is Love.

AngryFemme

2008-02-25, 12:43

If you want to argue that God does not approve of homsexuality, well ok. But arguing that God hates gays? Thats a non issue.

Poor WBC people...if only someone could lovingly and patiently open those peoples eyes.

Well, I suppose if they wanted to follow it to the letter, they could be more honest with their banners and bullhorns and lengthen the message out a bit:

GOD LOVES FAGS, BUT HE DISAPPROVES OF THEM SO MUCH THAT THEY ARE CERTAIN TO BE DOOMED TO ETERNAL HELL AND DAMNATION, AS THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION

So in all fairness, I can see how they might come to believe that God strongly loathes and abhors fags, based on the scriptures they're interpreting His message from.

The message is love. Your life should be filled with Faith, Hope, and Love... the greatest of these is Love.

I still maintain that Faith in God isn't entirely necessary in order to uphold Hope and Love.

K Scott

2008-02-25, 12:47

http://animation.speakfree.net/sermons/clips/faghouse.wav

Masero

2008-02-25, 13:46

Well, I suppose if they wanted to follow it to the letter, they could be more honest with their banners and bullhorns and lengthen the message out a bit:

GOD LOVES FAGS, BUT HE DISAPPROVES OF THEM SO MUCH THAT THEY ARE CERTAIN TO BE DOOMED TO ETERNAL HELL AND DAMNATION, AS THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION

So in all fairness, I can see how they might come to believe that God strongly loathes and abhors fags, based on the scriptures they're interpreting His message from.

I still maintain that Faith in God isn't entirely necessary in order to uphold Hope and Love.

Without faith how do you expect anything to work? Faith is the tie that binds. I once talked to an atheist who was raised in the mormon church and he said "I think the biggest reason that I've never done anything with my life is that I just don't have faith in myself and because of that I don't have faith in anything else. If I thought it could work, maybe I'd be successful". I think it changed me when he said that.

KamikazePimp

2008-02-25, 13:52

http://animation.speakfree.net/sermons/clips/faghouse.wav

That froze up my Firefox fuckass :mad: Now I gotta kill Bill(Gates).

--KP

Issue313

2008-02-25, 14:06

wolfy_9005

2008-02-25, 14:18

cause they love to take it in the ass. and why did they complain when they got bombed......damn government cant do anything right.....(ie. full s.w.a.t/sf raid on them)

prop's though.
stupid religious types....

Masero

2008-02-25, 16:42

What's with this preoccupation with (male) gayness?
It just creeps me out, and when it comes down to it I'd rather focus on all the real wickedness and evil in the world than on men making sexy-time with each other.

I think the biggest thing is that they remember Sodom and Gommorah being destroyed for their wickedness, where the main problem was homosexuality.

Also... it could stem to the fact that they're probably fearful of being turned gay if they spend too much time around gay people. That's the one biggest fear in the church is that "if we allow gays in, soon it will become acceptable to be gay and they will make us all gay".

Now, obvious that statement isn't true... most gay people aren't going around "Hey look! it's a hetero, let's see if we can turn him". Gay people are attracted to other gay people, not to heterosexual males. Of course there's always the "hot male body" that they'll go "ooh, I wish you were gay" but typically if a gay guy is gonna hit on someone, they're gonna probably choose another gay person.

The younger generation of Christians understands that you have to love everyone and that just because someone's gay doesn't make them inferior or an outcast. Yeah... we don't agree with the choices they make... but we also don't agree with the choices some of our own friends make. As a Christian you have to make sure that they know "I think what you're doing is wrong... but that doesn't mean I won't love you and care for you".

So many people focus on only the extreme radicals of religions, movements, etc. to make their opinions on if they believe something is right or wrong. I hate to tell people I'm a Christian because it's frustrating when they start trying to turn me into an atheist or disprove every word that comes out of my mouth, whether it's about religion or not. And these people are so "up to date' with their facts that even when I prove them wrong they just pretend it never happened or they go back to that illogical situation of "Can God build a rock that's so big he can't move it... oh he cant' see... he's not all powerful. Okay! Haha. You're stupid. Lulz." And then think they've changed my world completely. But all they've really done is made themselves look foolish for thinking that they will be the one person to make me disregard my beliefs.

Splam

2008-02-25, 16:43

Christ died for our sins. Thus we're allowed to sin and still go to heaven.

Rust

2008-02-25, 17:08

If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT? Because Jesus was "perfect-erer"?

Masero

2008-02-25, 17:58

If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT? Because Jesus was "perfect-erer"?

Again... you're failing to see the multi-faceted approach. If God is actually a God, there's no reason as to why his logic should supercede and be beyond our comprehension. He had not made the ultimate sacrifice of sending his Son to die for the sins of the world, so therefore he was sort of malevolent in his dealings with humans. Once J.C. pays the price for humans, the curtain in the holy temple is torn and now we can interact with God ourselves instead of having to go through a Preist/Orator of God.

And if we're all human beings who are you to take someone's life away?

AngryFemme

2008-02-25, 18:00

Without faith how do you expect anything to work? Faith is the tie that binds. I once talked to an atheist who was raised in the mormon church and he said "I think the biggest reason that I've never done anything with my life is that I just don't have faith in myself and because of that I don't have faith in anything else. If I thought it could work, maybe I'd be successful". I think it changed me when he said that.

I said without faith in a God, not without faith entirely. I don't believe we should expect anything to work. Getting something to work takes work, tenacity and dogged determination. Having faith in your abilities to overcome hardships, become a better person or work through seemingly hopeless situations is definitely putting your goals in a positive, Can-do light.

But faith in a God isn't necessary to achieve hope and love, and faith in a God isn't necessary to achieve the goal of living well, with an abundance of love and happiness for yourself and others. Faith in God is necessary only when you seek Salvation.

I have different feelings altogether where Salvation is concerned.

Masero

2008-02-25, 18:07

I said without faith in a God, not without faith entirely. I don't believe we should expect anything to work. Getting something to work takes work, tenacity and dogged determination. Having faith in your abilities to overcome hardships, become a better person or work through seemingly hopeless situations is definitely putting your goals in a positive, Can-do light.

But faith in a God isn't necessary to achieve hope and love, and faith in a God isn't necessary to achieve the goal of living well, with an abundance of love and happiness for yourself and others. Faith in God is necessary only when you seek Salvation.

I have different feelings altogether where Salvation is concerned.

Well... look at it in this light

I'm having faith in God that no matter what challenges await me, he has prepared me (or is preparing me) to be able to overcome them. If the odds are against me and it's going to be a tough battle, I shall not complain, but know that God is with me, helping me to push through the storm.

I don't really see any other way, aside from Salvation as you've mentioned, to place a faith in God. It would be foolish of someone to say "Well, I have faith in God that he will keep everything in control, I'm just gonna sit back and relax". Without putting forth effort there's no chance to acheive... like my sociology class... I'm not studying because I'm blowing that class off, so when I have tests I get thoroughly defiled and trampled on because I'm a dummy that didn't put forth the effort to learn. I can't say it was God's fault or pray that God magically gives me the answers. I didn't deserve them, so I shouldn't complain when I don't receive them.

AngryFemme

2008-02-25, 18:14

Again... you're failing to see the multi-faceted approach. If God is actually a God, there's no reason as to why his logic should supercede and be beyond our comprehension.

Yet ... it is. It's been the "unexplainable", beyond the approach of human categories and understanding. God is unknowable, except through faith.

Like you said, if God is actually a God, he could make Himself knowable to everyone, and within the grasp of human perception and understanding. There would be no atheists or agnostics if this were the case, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on and our positions would be illogical, based on what we know. But this is not the case.

Also, that's not the multi-faceted approach. That's the multi-metaphor, faith-based approach, once again.

Rust

2008-02-25, 18:32

Again... you're failing to see the multi-faceted approach. If God is actually a God, there's no reason as to why his logic should supercede and be beyond our comprehension.

Actually, I didn't "miss" anything. This "multi-faceted approach" creates more problems than it solves, not to mention that you conviniently pick and choose when to use it.

For example, you talk about us humanizing god but isn't that preciesly what you're doing by assuming that you know what Jesus meant when he spoked? For all you know he could have mutiple emotions and hold logic that surpasses ours; he could have meant something entirely different!

If we start assuming that he can surpass our logic then that means he could actually be in favor of the complete oppossite of what you're saying he is. That doesn't help us at all.

Either we assume he is following our logic when he speaks - and thus my point stands ("If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT?") or we assume that he doesn't, thus you don't know what the fuck he believes in or meant! When you reach conclusions after reading the bible, you're using human logic, and emotion. If you claim god is holds logic and emotions that are not human - that are greater than human - then you cannot be sure your conclusions hold.

Masero

2008-02-25, 18:52

Actually, I didn't "miss" anything. This "multi-faceted approach" creates more problems than it solves, not to mention that you conviniently pick and choose when to use it.

For example, you talk about us humanizing god but that's preciesly what you're doing by assuming that you know what Jesus meant when he spoked? For all you know he could have mutiple emotions and hold logic that surpasses ours, thus he could have meant something entirely different.

If we start assuming that he can surpass our logic then that means he could actually be in favor of the complete oppossite of what you're saying he is. That doesn't help us at all.

Either we assume he is following our logic when he speaks - and thus my point stands ("If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT?") or we assume that he doesn't, thus you don't know what the fuck he believes in or meant!

When speaking of God I say God... when speaking of Jesus, I say Jesus. As it stands, Jesus came to earth as a Human, using human logic, going through human trials, and being human. He performed miracles, but taught in a manner that people could understand.

When I say multi-faceted I mean God the Father. When I attempt to discern what Jesus said... I'm speaking of the Man who preached on love.

Yes, they were the same entity, but it's a Tri-Une God... something that IS hard to explain and DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. But as I said, His ways are not our ways...

I also gave you a reason for the apparent change in God's approach to people. HE GAVE HIS SON AS THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. He showed us mercy and compassion and grace. Things that we didn't deserve. I don't see how you wouldn't understand that.

And Also to AF:
If God were to make his presence known undoubtedly then we'd have no need for Jesus to die for our sins because we'd undoubtedly believe in God, therefore we wouldn't need faith, which is the key tenant in any religion/spiritual journey. Just because he's a loving God doesn't mean he can't be a jealous God that wants his creation to worship him. But we were given... I hate to say these words... Free will... to choose our choices.

Now, I don't really wanna get into Free Will Vs. Predestination, because my views are quite hard to explain. I think we have both, just in a very complicated sense.

Anyways, if we were given the ultimate knowledge of God and everything else then we wouldn't need God.

Rust

2008-02-25, 19:10

When speaking of God I say God... when speaking of Jesus, I say Jesus. As it stands, Jesus came to earth as a Human, using human logic, going through human trials, and being human. He performed miracles, but taught in a manner that people could understand.

How do you know he was using "human logic"? You don't. You assumed he did but you don't know that. You can't. It's impossible for you to know since even if it were explicitly stated in the Bible, you wouldn't be able to know if that's actually what was meant, or if he was using "god logic" and meant something else!

Again, that's preciesely the problem of your "multi-facetted" approach. It creates more problem than it solves. It creates uncertainty on everything god-related.

I also gave you a reason for the apparent change in God's approach to people. HE GAVE HIS SON AS THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. He showed us mercy and compassion and grace. Things that we didn't deserve. I don't see how you wouldn't understand that.
You don't know if he changed approaches! You assume he did, because you've decided to apply "human logic" there. You have absolutely no way of knowing if that's the logic he was using.

The best you can do is assume that because he was speaking to humans he would use "human logic" (but that doesn't have to be the case) which would apply to the OT god as well, so my point would stand there too.

AngryFemme

2008-02-25, 19:14

Well... look at it in this light

I'm having faith in God that no matter what challenges await me, he has prepared me (or is preparing me) to be able to overcome them. If the odds are against me and it's going to be a tough battle, I shall not complain, but know that God is with me, helping me to push through the storm.

I don't really see any other way, aside from Salvation as you've mentioned, to place a faith in God. It would be foolish of someone to say "Well, I have faith in God that he will keep everything in control, I'm just gonna sit back and relax". Without putting forth effort there's no chance to acheive... like my sociology class... I'm not studying because I'm blowing that class off, so when I have tests I get thoroughly defiled and trampled on because I'm a dummy that didn't put forth the effort to learn. I can't say it was God's fault or pray that God magically gives me the answers. I didn't deserve them, so I shouldn't complain when I don't receive them.

I kind of see where you're coming from. You explain your motives well and certainly don't seem to be the type of Believer who thinks it's their duty to round up all of humanity and get them in line for the Salvation that awaits them.

If I understood you correctly, the faith you have in God is essentially the positive push you need, mentally and emotionally, to give you the confidence in your own abilities. You don't just leave it "In God's hands", you realize that your God won't help those who don't help themselves. Am I on the same page with you here?

Do you believe that without faith in God, a fiery eternal afterlife awaits you? Do you believe that without faith in God, you are rendered completely, utterly incapable of being able to manage your own life and upholding your moral values? In other words - could you function as a productive, positive human being without God?

If you use God like I use the power of positive thinking to get you through all your trials and tribulations in your life, then I certainly can't disagree with you using a method that works. But if you believe that an absence of God renders a human being incapable of love, compassion and positive growth as a person - then I don't know how to convince you otherwise, besides offering myself up as an example of a Godless individual who manages to make it work on her own volition.

Anyways, if we were given the ultimate knowledge of God and everything else then we wouldn't need God.

We don't need God. We desire Him, as a faith-based initiative that makes us feel better, gives us something esoteric to believe in, and for salvation-reaching purposes for those who believe in salvation. Again, I'm not not knocking your personal methods at all - whatever works, stick with it! But it's not the only way to make one's life work in a positive, productive manner.

Masero

2008-02-25, 19:33

Well...

Alright, I'm about to take a final, so this is gonna be halfhearted and quite quick.

AF: I do believe that Christ is the way to Heaven. I do believe in planting seeds, which is letting people know that I believe in God, and how I believe to get to Heaven. I don't believe I need to force it on people, but I don't find it wrong to talk about what "God is doing in my life" at the place in time. In person, I choose my battles wisely and know when my beliefs should be kept to myself.

I don't think that w/o God you can't do anything productive. I do believe that there's a fiery afterlife for those that choose to disregard him, and as much as I'd rather not have people go to Hell, I know it's a waste to "save every person". People will disagree and that's that.

I'm gonna write more on this, but lemme take my final first.

Masero

2008-02-25, 20:12

Alright... so...

Without God... I believe you suffer eternal damnation, but I do not believe it is impossible to be a good person, and do great things on earth without him. What happens on this earth doesn't really change the spiritual after-life when it comes to innovations, inventions, successes, morally benevolent decisions.

I'm not as "close" to God as I used to be... I tend to keep him at arm's length because of past experiences. I probably would have a better life if I would just pony up and Do what I believe God may have called me to do. Discerning God from Self when it comes to decision making is quite hard for me because I know that sometimes I can "talk" to God and hear his decisions and sometimes I just make up a decision in my head and lie to myself enough to believe that God said it. I think that you don't need God to be positive and life a great life, but I do think that the idea of having faith in something can help stimulate a better life for some people. But my main reason, as per an epiphany I had earlier this year, for believing that Christianity is the key tenant to existence is love. Once you break it down, the idea of loving everyone, no matter their differences, just seems to make so much sense to me. That's not to say other parts of other religions can't help. I believe the alignment of the chakras and the "chi" and finding one's inner self in Buddhism can be very spiritual and helpful to those in need. I believe there are parts of this world that we won't experience if we don't reach out and try things. I used to astrally project. I believe in Psionics. I think there is SO MUCH MORE that humans can do... and religion maybe holds us back. Fear holds us back. A lot of things make us go "Hmm... better not meddle with that". I also think that Lucifer was probably given a little too much credit. He was the first sinner and he tempted Jesus in the desert and Adam & Eve in the Garden, but that doesn't mean we didn't make the decision to fuck up. I don't believe that he is omni-anything, so I don't think he would waste his time on certain people... he knows we are inherently evil now, so why make it a point to try to be in the lives of everyone?

But that's also another giant rabbit trail.

I think the main premise of life is to love and be loved. Of course I don't always follow it and some days would gladly crush someone's skull into a wall... but I also don't think that I have it in me (or want to have it in me) to personally eradicate one's life from here. Maybe my belief in the fiery after life for those that don't believe keeps me from ever trying to kill someone. We all know it's morally wrong but some days you don't really give a fuck about morality... it happens. And I think having a Christian belief, whether it's true or invalid, keeps me in a somewhat stable mind frame because it forces me to be other-centered, and think about the consequences towards other people depending on my actions. I [know (read: have the faith that)] I'm going to go to Heaven, if such a place exists, but I don't know the contents of another man's heart, ya know? I can't make that absolute ending for someone else because it's not my place to.

But see... I'm made up of many "contradictions". I do things that are blatantly wrong, but I don't see the harm in some of them because I know the situation is controlled. It would be arrogant to say I know how God works, but many different people of many different backgrounds have claimed that I'm on the right track and that my disturbing ideas sometimes actually make sense if you try to look at something from a God perspective. I hate being told that... but I also have a very awkward positioning of my own life.

If you would like more information on that one, AF, I wouldn't mind talking to you about it, personally. Its not something I'd rather speak of on a message board for it's kinda of eccentric and crazy.

BrokeProphet

2008-02-25, 20:25

The results of your faith will be a change in your hearts, bringing you to an introduction of LOVE. Mr. Phelps and his constituents are not bringing about love... but rather hate. Therefore, you're once again being illogical. Failtroll Fails.

When and how am I being illogical? Once again you have failed to realize what I am suggesting. Try again.

Please bear in mind, I am not placing good or bad value judgements on WHAT Mr. Phelps, Pat Robinson, or the Pope preach (in this thread).

I am saying, and will repeat for your sake, that the WBC is a part of Christianity, they WILL go to heaven (according to your religion). THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between you and them is that they simply harken back to an old school brand of Christianity that has grown out of favor and seems in poor taste in this day and age. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

Well, that and they don't believe in psionic mind powers and astral projection. I am wondering if you cut yourself?

If you find yourself, to be completely unable to address this (again) please refrain from calling names.

BrokeProphet

2008-02-25, 20:48

All they do is literally takes things out of context from the old testament and use it as justification for their methods of creating shock value. "God Hates Fags" supposedly justified by the one line that says gays should die, for example, is utterly perverse. It says many times in the bible that god loves all his children, sinners or not. And just because you break "Gods law" does not mean that God hates you. God simply does not hate in that sense. We are all sinners. Those laws were written as laws for the ancient jewish society. Nothing more. If you want to argue that God does not approve of homsexuality, well ok. But arguing that God hates gays? Thats a non issue.

Poor WBC people...if only someone could lovingly and patiently open those peoples eyes.

Esau have I hated.
- God Romans 9:13

God did not love all of his children.

It seems to be wrong for the WBC to say God hates fags when he only wanted his straight children to murder faggots by pelting stones at them until they were dead, but c'mon, God dislikes fags just doesn't have the same ring to it.

God had more mercy for violent rapists than he did for consenting faggots.

I still find it funny when Christians have such a distaste for what WBC does, and fail to realize they are simply practicing old school christianity.

Masero

2008-02-26, 02:09

AngryFemme

2008-02-26, 02:11

Masero:

I appreciate the time and effort you put into your last few posts. At some point I hope we find the opportunity to speak off the boards about some of this, if only to break the stereotype of atheists and Christians not being able to hold civil discourse while gleaning perspective from one another.

Few pertinent questions -
(If you choose to not answer them on the boards, that's fine - my e-mail is on my profile)

Do you believe that the myth of the talking snake in the garden of good & evil is just symbolic? By symbolic, I mean in the sense of a parable (such as the Tortoise & Hare) that is metaphorically described to instill lessons we can all identify with? Or do you believe literally in the talking snake?

A lot of Christian apologetics often point to the entirely unreasonable (and unplausible, with what we know today) stories in the Bible and claim that these stories are told in a rich sense of parable, and that they should be understood that way. Even some Biblical scholars view the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection - to be symbolic, and not literal.

What do you believe Heaven and Hell are made up of? A symbolic resting place for the soul once it leaves the body? Or do you actually believe in the literal eternal fire for hell, and a paradise for Heaven ... that just happens to "store" every soul ever expired since the beginning of mankind?

If so much of the Bible can be taken metaphorically and symbolically, could Heaven and Hell just be another yarn in the parable? Possibly an effective superstition that has kept people on the straight and narrow, and given them something to either look forward to or fear, depending on how they conducted themselves? In other words: an incentive for Heaven, a threat with Hell.

Many times it's been said on here when people point out the absurdity and cruelty of some of the practices in the Old Testament that it is to be understood in the context of the time it was written in. That's only fair, as we've come a long way in understanding certain "acts of God" to be completely natural, non-divine phenomena.

Two thousand years after the New Testament, at what point is it prudent for us to begin to preserve the lessons (promoting love and goodwill) while we abandon the actual stories as being ... well, just stories? Mind you - the lessons can be preserved, and re-told in a more modern view that would be something skeptics absolutely couldn't deny, unless they were just anti-love or anti-peace or anti-goodwill.

All those Buddhists you so admire - do you believe they'll be going to Hell too, despite the fact that they live a life dedicated to peace, love and goodwill? They can recognize Jesus as a historical figure, and glean insights and valuable lessons from his teachings - but they don't believe he is to be worshipped and glorified and exalted as the only path to God (or in their case, enlightenment).

There are about a billion Muslims who believe you will suffer in eternal hell. Do you just believe they are wrong? Is there no doubt in your mind that THEY will be the ones experiencing hell, and not you?

godfather89

2008-02-26, 20:48

Selfless love, being a servant, showing people that you care about them as a human being whether they're black, white, gay, straight, theist, atheist, is what the message is about.

You're right... you're not promised love back... you're promised a spot in Heaven. If Heaven is a real place, I think it's okay to weigh the differences and go w/o love. But that's not to say you won't be loved. Your actions alone will make SOME people go "Wow, that's really cool... you're doing something I definitely couldn't do". If everyone spent time loving each other instead of trying to dissect everything about everyone then this world would probably be in a better place. Yah, it sounds like hippy-shit but it's true. I'm not saying that you should become a swelled up vagina, spewing sunshine and happiness on everything... but it doesn't hurt to love people. It's hard to love someone when they've been raped at a young age or something like that... but just because you love someone doesn't mean you have to fuck them. Love is a dead word because we've used it for the wrong reason.

The message is love. Your life should be filled with Faith, Hope, and Love... the greatest of these is Love.

1. Im glad you see my point...

2. Heaven is not a place, its a state of mind... It transcends time and space therefore it cant be concieved in terms of what we "see." If it can be concieved as such than it must be a state and position of being, the Gnostics Call It The Fullness. To me Love isnt dead just very misunderstood I often said to myself that the world would reject Christ again if they saw him because, everyone has a pre-conceived notion of Christos. Since Christ embodied one of the many virtues in this instance love, I have a feeling the world would reject or at the very least not recognize true love.

3. Good again Im glad you see my point...

Masero

2008-02-26, 21:21

1. Im glad you see my point...

2. Heaven is not a place, its a state of mind... It transcends time and space therefore it cant be concieved in terms of what we "see." If it can be concieved as such than it must be a state and position of being, the Gnostics Call It The Fullness. To me Love isnt dead just very misunderstood I often said to myself that the world would reject Christ again if they saw him because, everyone has a pre-conceived notion of Christos. Since Christ embodied one of the many virtues in this instance love, I have a feeling the world would reject or at the very least not recognize true love.

3. Good again Im glad you see my point...

Well... You have yours and I have mine. I think Heaven is an actual place... just not on this plane of existence. Christ did say he was going to prepare a place for us... and I believe that's what he's doing.

Twisted_Ferret

2008-02-27, 04:33

Twisted_Ferret

2008-02-27, 04:35

JesuitArtiste

2008-02-27, 15:07

Gays should die, but we don't hate them. That's cool.

(Also, it's many lines - including some in the New Testament.)

For anyone who is still hung up that the Old Testament doesn't apply now, I reiterate ninja's post:

Jesus refers repeatedly to the Old Testament being the Word of God.

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
"Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)
"the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3)

Also he noted that the scripture can and will never change: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18)

"The commandments... are summed up in this one rule, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' ...Therefore Love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 8:11

"I ask you, what is lawful on the sabbath: to do good, or to do evil, to save a life or destroy it?" Luke 6:9

"the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Mark 2:27

"...To love you neighbour as yourself is more imporatant than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." Mark 12:33

The Old testament is often incompatible with the words of Jesus, Jesus is (supposedly) either the literal or spiritual Son of God; we can reasonably show that it is more likely that Jesus is in the know about how to act in regard to law, God and doing what is right. And so it's probaly better to follow Jesus's lead when it comes to being a christian.

The way people read and use scripture is more showing of THEM as a person than the text as a whole.

Maybe the OT does still apply, but I think that Jesus gave priority to the golden rule, and that, as a christian, this should be considered first when faced with a situation, and if the teaching is incompatible it should not be used.

Rust

2008-02-27, 15:24

JesuitArtiste

2008-02-27, 15:48

^ Either you have perfect set of moral laws/imperatives in the OT, that are equally good to Jesus' teachings, or you have an imperfect set of moral laws/imperatives in the OT that were later improved by Jesus.

Which is it?

An imperfect set of moral/imperatives in the OT that were later improved by Jesus.

Or Jesus is merely simplifying and clarifying the intent behind the 10 commandments, and also placing people as having a greater importance than following the law.

But I'll agree, that the OT rules and laws seem to be less good than Jesus's teachings.

Rust

2008-02-28, 03:41

TruthWielder

2008-02-28, 03:50

Gays should die, but we don't hate them. That's cool.

(Also, it's many lines - including some in the New Testament.)

For anyone who is still hung up that the Old Testament doesn't apply now, I reiterate ninja's post:

Jesus refers repeatedly to the Old Testament being the Word of God.

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
"Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)
"the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3)

Also he noted that the scripture can and will never change: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18)

Jesus never preached death, destruction, or subversion of anything other than the evils within the self. You know this so please dont pretend that Jesus said gays should be killed. Thats the Old Testament Jewish tradition. Absolutely the scripture must no be broken in the sense that it should always be used as a guideline for human action. I often wish that Jesus, like Buddha, would have told his followers to use their reason pro actively. Hell, he could have for all we know, but the council of Nicea took a good chunk out of the scriptures, much of which we will never know.

Naturally, your right TF, there are several inconsistencies with the words Jesus and the old testament as well as his feelings towards the old testament. But I would like to again emphasize that the bible and scripture has been changed many times by many people for many reasons. None of them good.

TruthWielder

2008-02-28, 03:58

Thanks for the honest reply.

Do you beleive a god exists? If you do, do you believe he is perfect? If so, why would he delibertelly give out imperfect moral guidelines? Wouldn't that mean, by definition, that he has fooled people into committing immoral acts by virtue of following his flawed moral laws?

If a medical provider deliberately gave out information he knew was flawed, he would be tried criminally. Why would any reasonable human being not see that god in the same like - a god who is supposed to be infinitely more knowledgeable and powerful mind you?

Yes.

Yes.

No one said the guidelines are imperfect. By the christian definition the greatest moral guideline is the golden rule and I would assert that it is a perfect idea. Humanity being the factor of imperfection.

No, because if you believe that you have the ability to choose your path (we are given free will) that suggests the responsibility of the individual in correctly identifying a moral or immoral act by use of reason. Other than the fact that we have an empathetic conscience.

If a patient misunderstood or ignored a doctors information and thus neglected to watch out for their own health they have chosen a path that will lead to their undoing. A doctor can only help insofar as caring, informing, and when(and only when) called upon, helping. The patient is responsible for their own health as the human is responsible for their own destiny.

Rust

2008-02-28, 04:09

No one said the guidelines are imperfect.

Err... I'm replying to JesuitArtiste, and he did:

"An imperfect set of moral/imperatives in the OT that were later improved by Jesus."

You might not have said they were imperfect, but I didn't ask you. I do appreciate the response though.

No, because if you believe that you have the ability to choose your path (we are given free will) that suggests the responsibility of the individual in correctly identifying a moral or immoral act by use of reason. Other than the fact that we have an empathetic conscience. Let's ignore the problem of omniscience and free will and assume people would have free will.

Were they supposed to go against what god said? Were they supposed to go against what god commanded in order to act morally?

If a patient misunderstood or ignored a doctors information and thus neglected to watch out for their own health they have chosen a path that will lead to their undoing. A doctor can only help insofar as caring, informing, and when(and only when) called upon, helping. The patient is responsible for their own health as the human is responsible for their own destiny.The patient didn't misunderstand anything! The doctor gave inaccurate information (i.e. the moral laws were imperfect) according to JesuitArtiste. Again, you might not believe he did, but then please don't reply to my analogy as if it somehow failed when it is clearly aimed at someone who does believe the moral guidelines were imperfect.

You can attack the idea that the OT moral imperatives were imperfect, in which case I ask my original question:

"Either you have perfect set of moral laws/imperatives in the OT, that are equally good to Jesus' teachings, or you have an imperfect set of moral laws/imperatives in the OT that were later improved by Jesus.

Which is it?"

Masero

2008-02-28, 04:38

I don't really think the laws were wrong at that point in time.

Before Jesus came... you pretty much had to be doing right, making sacrifices, and not fucking up, because your actions were what sent you to Abraham's Bosom or the rest of Sheol.

When Jesus came, he taught of love and respect. He then died, went to Abraham's Bosom and preached his message of salvation to those there, giving them a spot in Heaven. Those that were in the rest of Sheol were damned to Hell, I'm quite sure... but I don't remember how that whole thing worked. Before Christ died for our sins though there was no Heaven or Hell talk... that's why Jewish communities later on in life are taught to believe there is no heaven or hell, only Sheol.

Once Jesus came into the picture, the rules changed. God didn't change... but now you had a redeemer that could save you, whether your actions previously had been right or wrong... since man was destined to wrong and could never acheive on his own the right to get into Heaven.

So it's not the say the laws were imperfect, it's to say the situation wasn't the same.

TruthWielder

2008-02-28, 05:03

Err... I'm replying to JesuitArtiste, and he did:

"An imperfect set of moral/imperatives in the OT that were later improved by Jesus."

You might not have said they were imperfect, but I didn't ask you. I do appreciate the response though.

Let's ignore the problem of omniscience and free will and assume people would have free will.

Were they supposed to go against what god said? Were they supposed to go against what god commanded in order to act morally?

The patient didn't misunderstand anything! The doctor gave inaccurate information (i.e. the moral laws were imperfect) according to JesuitArtiste. Again, you might not believe he did, but then please don't reply to my analogy as if it somehow failed when it is clearly aimed at someone who does believe the moral guidelines were imperfect.

You can attack the idea that the OT moral imperatives were imperfect, in which case I ask my original question:

"Either you have perfect set of moral laws/imperatives in the OT, that are equally good to Jesus' teachings, or you have an imperfect set of moral laws/imperatives in the OT that were later improved by Jesus.

Which is it?"

Excuse me rust, I thought it was an open question and I was ignorant of JesuitArtiste and his posts.

Here I do not agree with most of my fellow Christians. God, in the form of Jesus, brought a new covenant with humanity rendering the status of old testament teachings secondary to the teachings of Jesus Christ who was, as God, by definition perfect or at least his laws/word was perfect. (I somehow feel that Jesus came into his Godliness gradually...by learning from his mistakes and accepting his mission).

In response to the questions:

No, moral action is synonymous or at least parallel with the will of God as demonstrated in scripture.

I do not agree with JesuitArtiste's belief that scripture, in itself and without revision, is purposely misleading and I stand by the belief that while a moral law or idea can be perfect, humans are not.

I would assent to the second statement regarding the superiority of Jesus' teaching in relation to the old testament but that the Old testament is still to be used as a guideline. Most specifically the part outlined by Jesus (the ten commandments).

BrokeProphet

2008-02-28, 22:19

If you've never experienced Psionics (people that can make psi balls, use empathy, telepathy, whatever) then you're looking at this from a broken POV. I've watched these things happen.
And no... why would I cut myself? Just beucase I've tried eccentric things doesn't mean I've been a depression ridden attention whore. You're still failing to use logic.

When and how am I being illogical? Once again you have failed to realize what I am suggesting. Try again.

Please bear in mind, I am not placing good or bad value judgements on WHAT Mr. Phelps, Pat Robinson, or the Pope preach (in this thread).

I am saying, and will repeat for your sake, that the WBC is a part of Christianity, they WILL go to heaven (according to the religion). THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE between today's christian believer's beliefs and the WBC's is that they simply harken back to an old school brand of Christianity that has grown out of favor and seems in poor taste in this day and age. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE.

If you find yourself, to be completely unable to address this (again) please refrain from calling names.

*note this is the exact same post you have failed to reply to MINUS the two sentence jab you decided to respond to. I also edited the bolded statement to make it less general.

I am not looking at psionics from a broken POV just b/c I have not experienced. IF anything it is from a skeptical POV. What exactly is a psi ball? Also I am wondering if there are people out there who can use telepathy.....why do magicians use clever tricks to make us think they have it.

Masero

2008-02-28, 22:51

When and how am I being illogical? Once again you have failed to realize what I am suggesting. Try again.

Please bear in mind, I am not placing good or bad value judgements on WHAT Mr. Phelps, Pat Robinson, or the Pope preach (in this thread).

I am saying, and will repeat for your sake, that the WBC is a part of Christianity, they WILL go to heaven (according to the religion). THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE between today's christian believer's beliefs and the WBC's is that they simply harken back to an old school brand of Christianity that has grown out of favor and seems in poor taste in this day and age. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE.

If you find yourself, to be completely unable to address this (again) please refrain from calling names.

*note this is the exact same post you have failed to reply to MINUS the two sentence jab you decided to respond to. I also edited the bolded statement to make it less general.

I am not looking at psionics from a broken POV just b/c I have not experienced. IF anything it is from a skeptical POV. What exactly is a psi ball? Also I am wondering if there are people out there who can use telepathy.....why do magicians use clever tricks to make us think they have it.

You were failing to use logic when you started jabbing at me for the psionics/OBE comment. Why do magicians use clever tricks? Maybe because those people can't do it? Ever thought about that? The people who can do stuff like that usually do go around waving their E-Penis about how they can do crazy stuff. The ones that want to do it to show off are doing it for the wrong reasons and usually can't do it.

And I've been trying to tell you that Christianity has always been about love. I've been trying to tell you that the old testament is Jewish history and it not Christian history. You're still being illogical because YOU'RE THINKING that the MAIN IDEA OF CHRISTIANITY IS TO HATE FAGGOTS. That never was the case. Never did Christ once say "Oh btw... as Christians you're supposed to stone faggots and hate people". You keep putting the Old Testament rules which I've already said were the pentateuch (HEBREW JEWISH LAW) and saying it was the law of Christians. It's not. The great commandment was to spread love.

How are you spreading love by hating? Just because a bunch of crooked old people over the past generations have disregarded gays doesn't mean that was the rules of Christianity, it means they distorted what they thought was right and misinterpreted scripture.

Rust

2008-02-28, 23:46

I do not agree with JesuitArtiste's belief that scripture, in itself and without revision, is purposely misleading and I stand by the belief that while a moral law or idea can be perfect, humans are not.

To be fair, he didn't say it was misleading per se, but that's a necessary consequence of the belief that the OT guidelines are imperfect and that god could have given perfect ones.

If he is omnipotent and omniscient, and thus could have given perfect moral guidelines, yet didn't, then he deliberately chose to give misleading moral information.

I would assent to the second statement regarding the superiority of Jesus' teaching in relation to the old testament but that the Old testament is still to be used as a guideline. Most specifically the part outlined by Jesus (the ten commandments).

So then the answer to the question is that you believe the OT guidelines are imperfect? If B is superior to A, then A is not perfect, by definition.

godfather89

2008-02-29, 06:14

Well... You have yours and I have mine. I think Heaven is an actual place... just not on this plane of existence. Christ did say he was going to prepare a place for us... and I believe that's what he's doing.

Jesus said to the robber on the right "Today you will be with me in paradise." Yet Jesus resurrects on the 3rd day, we know Jesus descended into hell and on the third day rose again, but "Today" is not "The Third Day" where he had gone is Paradise but Hell isnt paradise... Heaven is a mystery waiting to be revealed by you if you seek it, its layed out in front of you, but many do not see it...

Masero

2008-02-29, 06:33

He didn't descend to Hell. He went to Sheol. His job was to save those in Abraham's Bosom and then become the savior for the rest of us.

The difference between the OT Laws and the NT Laws were that Jesus hadn't yet gone to Sheol to become the living sacrifice, so the laws were set up differently according to the fact that there was no blessed redeemer and your actual works determined whether you went to Abraham's Bosom or the rest of Sheol.

But instead he (BrokeProphet) wants to focus on the fact that I won't answer a question which I answered, about how those laws were Jewish laws and not Christian laws... which would've made sense to anyone that realised Christianity couldn't start until after Christ was born/died/ressurected, which, unless I'm mistaken and I don't know how to read, occured AFTER the OT was written. But then again, I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. I guess since it's so simple that people can't accept it because they want this to be some drawn out long answer where we admit defeat to their twisting words and lack of respect.

Rust

2008-02-29, 11:07

Nothing you've said, and I have read it - I suggest you stop being dishonest by suggesting I haven't - answers my question.

1. Whether Jesus hadn't been a "living sacrifice" yet or not is irrelevant. That doesn't change anything. The moral guidelines were still in place by the OT God one way, and then by Jesus another way. That's the only relevant fact. Why it was that way isn't really important because it doesn't change that difference.

2. That Christianity hadn't started yet (before Jesus was born) is painfully obvious. That has little to do with what I've said. I haven't even mentioned the word "Christianity" in my points.

If you're suggesting that only Jews had moral laws, and then after Jesus, only Christians (or only Christians and Jews) then you're sorely mistaken. Yes, there were laws imparted directly to the Jewish people, but clearly there were laws that applied to everyone.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

God judged the entire Earth (except Noah and his family) as wicked and evil-hearted. That requires that the people of Earth had not been following correct moral guidelines, but instead had been breaking them. The Bible says the Jews had a special covenant with God; it does not say that all the moral guidelines apply only to them. If there are moral imperatives in the OT that apply to humans as whole, then my point is made.

Now please, either answer my question, or please be so kind as to shut the fuck up.

Masero

2008-02-29, 12:20

Rust

2008-02-29, 13:05

God had Mercey on Noah and his Family. They were wicked themselves. Noah celebrated by getting drunk in front of his kids when they got off the ark.

I know.... They were considered less wicked or more deserving of being saved...

What does that have to do with what I said?

And maybe during that time everyone was wicked. The entire world was probably plagued with sin. There weren't that many people at the time of the deluge. The tower of Babel had not yet been set up so there weren't people all over the world yet. I'm assuming it was plagued with sin... That's actually a requirement of that being an example of my point! If the world wasn't plagued with sin at that time, I couldn't use it as an example...

Who's to say at that moment they weren't all descendants of Adam only, which made them technically all Jews?
Huh? Everyone is a descendant of Adam, according to the Bible, because Adam was the first man! If everyone is a Jew, my point is still made.

The reality is, Jews are the descendants of Abraham (hence why it's an "Abrahamic religion"). Before Abraham, the term "Jew" or "Hebrew" was not used.

More importantly, however, the so-called Jewish Laws were given long after the Global Flood! They weren't in place at that time, so again, moral guidelines that applied to everyone in the world - Jew or not - were in place, and the OT God judged the entire world based on these guidelines as he sadistically drowned them.

My question still hasn't been answered.

----

Really, it looks like you are really confused about what is being said here and/or who is saying it. One one hand you claim you meant that whole post towards BrokeProphet, but on the other you mentioned my name multiple times (even went through the trouble of using bold on it) and even now after you edited your post to make it seem as if you were referring to BrokeProphet... you left my name in at the end! I'm suddenly mentioned after your tirade against him (which was initially against me it seems). Not to mention, you had already replied to BrokeProphet before; it makes little sense that you would make a post right after mine, use my name multiple times, and then claim it (or parts of it) was aimed at BP.

Get your shit straight.

Masero

2008-02-29, 15:33

I know.... They were considered less wicked or more deserving of being saved...

What does that have to do with what I said?

I'm assuming it was plagued with sin... That's actually a requirement of that being an example of my point! If the world wasn't plagued with sin at that time, I couldn't use it as an example...

Huh? Everyone is a descendant of Adam, according to the Bible, because Adam was the first man! If everyone is a Jew, my point is still made.

The reality is, Jews are the descendants of Abraham (hence why it's an "Abrahamic religion"). Before Abraham, the term "Jew" or "Hebrew" was not used.

More importantly, however, the so-called Jewish Laws were given long after the Global Flood! They weren't in place at that time, so again, moral guidelines that applied to everyone in the world - Jew or not - were in place, and the OT God judged the entire world based on these guidelines as he sadistically drowned them.

My question still hasn't been answered.

----

Really, it looks like you are really confused about what is being said here and/or who is saying it. One one hand you claim you meant that whole post towards BrokeProphet, but on the other you mentioned my name multiple times (even went through the trouble of using bold on it) and even now after you edited your post to make it seem as if you were referring to BrokeProphet... you left my name in at the end! I'm suddenly mentioned after your tirade against him (which was initially against me it seems). Not to mention, you had already replied to BrokeProphet before; it makes little sense that you would make a post right after mine, use my name multiple times, and then claim it (or parts of it) was aimed at BP.

Get your shit straight.

I don't really look at the names of the people saying stuff to me... but you guys are both usually in the same boat, so whatever. If you were to read this stuff w/o seeing the names (anonymous posting) you and he would both look the same with some of your posts. If the world really was that bad in sin after the first sin then maybe it was best to drown them. Once you've gone so far it's not easy to get back to being right. At that point your sins were what you were graded on, not whether or not you had been filled with the holy spirit. God doesn't have to be this benevolent lover all of the time. These people were fucking up and were being chastised for what they did.

Rust

2008-02-29, 15:58

If the world really was that bad in sin after the first sin then maybe it was best to drown them. Once you've gone so far it's not easy to get back to being right. At that point your sins were what you were graded on, not whether or not you had been filled with the holy spirit. God doesn't have to be this benevolent lover all of the time. These people were fucking up and were being chastised for what they did.

Great, you're in favor of mass murder on a global scale. Awesome. Now how does that relate to my point? I'm not here debating whether you or the OT God saw the Global Flood as justified...

You're not even putting effort into understanding what I'm saying, are you? If you're not going to pay attention, then please don't reply to me. Put me on ignore so you won't confuse our posts. That way I won't have to suffer through reading your posts in the vain hope that you'd actually put some effort into both understanding what was said and who was saying it when you reply. Because, apparently, that's just too much to ask...

Masero

2008-02-29, 16:26

If God is perfect, and his word is perfect, why shouldn't we emulate him as he was (and has he said) in the OT? Because Jesus was "perfect-erer"?

We should emulate Jesus because since the curtain tore and now we can speak to God personally we've been told to love and be loved. This is because now instead of having to offer sacrifices in an attempt to appease God for our wrong-doings we can ask for forgiveness.

The reason why we shouldn't emulate the Hard-nosed Vicious God of the OT is because we now have a chance to ask for forgiveness of our sins, no matter how wrong they are. Insted of going around killing people for commiting sins, we rehabilitate them and show them the right way. Before Christ came your works and your sacrifice merited how well you did in the afterlife. Now that Christ is here, you don't have to be perfect, because it's impossible, you have a chance to be redeemed.

There. I have answered your question. It's not that Jesus is "perfect-erer" is that the times, situations, and consequences have changed.

godfather89

2008-02-29, 17:05

Masero

2008-02-29, 17:19

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house." - Mark 4: 21-23

is equivalent to: Gospel of Thomas Saying 33: "Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.

After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."

This sounds passive, your proclaiming but your not forcefully trying to convert people, coerce or even actively proselytizing others. It sounds more like as if he is saying to not be ashamed of what path you follow and that you should not use the path inappropriately. You should be the lamp on the lamp stand so all can see or the city on the hill that all can see, those who like what they see will benefit from it, and will be NATURALLY attracted to the message. There is no need for screaming, finger-pointing, or force fed religion.

The reason why I am saying it here in this thread are twofold:

1) I truly believe that Christianity was not supposed to become a popular trend of societal control and dogmatics but a spiritual path for all to take on there own accord.

2) A lot of these evangelist and fundamentalist are going against Christ teachings of not scaring the be-jesus out of you so you will unwillingly convert... Yet they do, the scare you and promise damnation and hellfire for those who are weak minded and don't bother to seek.

Well... I must admit, I'm not a fan of forceful evangelizing... but it's where I learned about Jesus. A man screaming about how bad drugs ruined him and how he almost died (which all was documented I think somewhere, so he wasn't just making shit up) had a script called "the Elevator Trip to Hell" and it freaked the fuck out of me as a kid... but it was the seed that was sown and it was what got me hooked.

I think there's a difference though between forceful evangelising... and the works of the disciples after Jesus' Ascension on the mount. They, out of sheer amazement, told the story. Probably, out of compassion for humans, they wished for others to escape the perils of Hell, but I think the main reason for their "evangelising" was to tell the story of what they just witnessed and to provide to people a way out of the life they were in. They weren't looking for monetary gain out of it. If they wanted money they would return to their old occupations (which they did once or twice before the Ascension), they did it because they earnestly wanted people to hear the story and be changed completely. The evangelists of today are, mostly, using it as a profession of monetary gain.

godfather89

2008-02-29, 20:18

Well... I must admit, I'm not a fan of forceful evangelizing... but it's where I learned about Jesus.

A man screaming about how bad drugs ruined him and how he almost died (which all was documented I think somewhere, so he wasn't just making shit up) had a script called "the Elevator Trip to Hell" and it freaked the fuck out of me as a kid... but it was the seed that was sown and it was what got me hooked.

I think there's a difference though between forceful evangelizing... and the works of the disciples after Jesus' Ascension on the mount. They, out of sheer amazement, told the story. Probably, out of compassion for humans, they wished for others to escape the perils of Hell, but I think the main reason for their "evangelizing" was to tell the story of what they just witnessed and to provide to people a way out of the life they were in.

They weren't looking for monetary gain out of it. If they wanted money they would return to their old occupations (which they did once or twice before the Ascension), they did it because they earnestly wanted people to hear the story and be changed completely.

The evangelists of today are, mostly, using it as a profession of monetary gain.

1. It doesn't work there are only two ways to be saved: "Repent for Your Actions" by YOU WILLING TO not being scared shit less or "God's Grace" where God will send to you a wake up call, what I call a reminder.

2. The seed sown in your instance is the seed that fell into the bushes which began growing in the world of concerns, thoughts and feelings and the seed is choked off in your instance by fear.

3. Your right there is a difference and forceful, coercive, or fear-based evangelizing will not work. It starts and ends with the individual in life, therefore, what one needs is a role-model one people can look to for wisdom and help this is equivalent to being the Lamp on the Stand, the role model is there for all to see and who ever is naturally attracted to that lamp will go to that teacher.

4. I'm not arguing about the apostles desire to have compassion for others but there is a difference between Converting by the Sword (physical or metaphorical) and just being there for all to see. In fact there is some esoteric connection to the apostles and what they represent.

5. I am not going to argue about today's evangelist being there spiritual materialists. They teach very superficial lessons about the spirit for a price and its not just money but your own individuality as well.

Masero

2008-02-29, 20:32

BrokeProphet

2008-02-29, 20:44

And I've been trying to tell you that Christianity has always been about love. I've been trying to tell you that the old testament is Jewish history and it not Christian history. You're still being illogical because YOU'RE THINKING that the MAIN IDEA OF CHRISTIANITY IS TO HATE FAGGOTS. That never was the case. Never did Christ once say "Oh btw... as Christians you're supposed to stone faggots and hate people". You keep putting the Old Testament rules which I've already said were the pentateuch (HEBREW JEWISH LAW) and saying it was the law of Christians. It's not. The great commandment was to spread love.

How are you spreading love by hating? Just because a bunch of crooked old people over the past generations have disregarded gays doesn't mean that was the rules of Christianity, it means they distorted what they thought was right and misinterpreted scripture.

You accuse me of being illogical by putting words in my mouth? I have never said the main idea of christianity is to hate faggots. Even if I thought that (which I don't) it would still not be illogical. Misinterpreted or false, but not illogical. Define illogical before you continue to use it.

You are being obtuse. To say Hebrew Jewish Law does not apply to modern Christians is foolish. As I understand it the ten commandments were jewish law as was the covenant for the sabbath. How can christians use some jewish law and not others?

I will tell you again.

Differing groups pick and choose different overgeneralized horseshit from the bible to identify themselves with. What's more is that over time this horseshit changes depending upon external influences. Indeed, this is what seperates these groups.

^-----THIS (my whole point for the past 4 pages) is NOT illogical. It is not incorrect.

Now you can argue which sect of christianity is better and why, What is more difficult to argue is that WBC are not christians. Your christian brethren.

BrokeProphet

2008-02-29, 20:53

How does the fact that I was brought into a desire for Christianity originally through fear mean that the seed sown to me was in the bushes?

It means you are a co-dependant coward, who lacks the ability to truly think for himself. A coward b/c you could not overcome that fear and are still unable to cope with it. Some people NEED to be told how to live and what to do. Clearly, you are one of those people.

Masero

2008-02-29, 21:05

It means you are a co-dependant coward, who lacks the ability to truly think for himself. A coward b/c you could not overcome that fear and are still unable to cope with it. Some people NEED to be told how to live and what to do. Clearly, you are one of those people.

I was a fucking middle schooler. Way to over analyze a fucking kid. Later on in life I went through a period of solitude where I spent time in God's Word learning about the different things and making a choice to stay with Christianity.

You're just mud slinging because it's trendy to hate Christianity.

BrokeProphet

2008-02-29, 21:19

I was a fucking middle schooler. Way to over analyze a fucking kid. Later on in life I went through a period of solitude where I spent time in God's Word learning about the different things and making a choice to stay with Christianity.

You're just mud slinging because it's trendy to hate Christianity.

I am 27 years old, trends mean exactly shit to me. I imagine you must cope with the fact that you have failed at being an independant minded human. Tell yourself what you must.

Over analyze a kid? Perhaps. Are you still a child? The christian meme does the most damage to a mind still forming. All religions seek out young minds to infect.

Why?

Because a child who still has imaginary friends, believes in Santa, and imgines his toy soldiers are really fighting is more ready to believe in invisible man in the sky, talking snakes, evil fruit, zombies, ghosts, and Satan.

So you are not a child now. Then it is time to rid yourself of all of your imaginary friends is it not? Or is the fear of Hell still to great?

Masero

2008-02-29, 21:26

BrokeProphet

2008-02-29, 21:48

Aw man... you're so good at thinking for yourself. You're 27. Wow. You've lived such a long life... oh wait. You haven't. Nevermind. You're just intolerant. Prove to me that God doesn't exist. Give me an honest 100% proof that no deity of greatness could have existed ever, under any circumstance, whether he's benevolent or malevolent.

I will.........the second you can prove to me I did not just shit a handful of pure golden nuggets right now. Go on, prove I did not.

Difficult isn't it? Want to know why? Because you are unaware of a simple concept known as the burden of proof.

You see, without the burden of proof, anyone gets to make whatever outrageous statements they wish and cannot be called bullshit on it due to a lack of evidence.

I fucked your mother, prove I did not.
I am really a prince of a galactic empire, prove otherwise.
I can turn invisible and fly when nobody is watching, prove otherwise.
I have an invisible dragon in my garage, prove I do not.

I think you get the point. Burden of proof is a real helpful thing. Look it up.

JesuitArtiste

2008-02-29, 21:58

Thanks for the honest reply.

Do you believe a god exists? If you do, do you believe he is perfect? If so, why would he delibertelly give out imperfect moral guidelines? Wouldn't that mean, by definition, that he has fooled people into committing immoral acts by virtue of following his flawed moral laws?

If a medical provider deliberately gave out information he knew was flawed, he would be tried criminally. Why would any reasonable human being not see that god in the same way - a god who is supposed to be infinitely more knowledgeable and powerful mind you? Shouldn't responsibility be proportional to the capability one had in preventing, stopping or rectifying the situation?

I'm not sure on God, either choice seems equally possible/stupid to me, just in differant ways. But really I lean more towards a lack of belief in God.

However, what I do believe about God, if God is real, is that God must be perfect. I don't believe that God, in the true sense, would do something such as send man any moral rules directly, as I belive that Gods role would be best described as passive (this is the best description I can think of in the present context.)

Instead I believe that these moral guidelines are 'inspired by God'. By this I mean that while thinking, meditating, considering or whatever you want to call it, on God, certain ideas will enter into the individual considering God; they are not 'Given' to the individual directly, but they are gained by the individuals own thoughts. An example of One of the most basic of these thoughts I think is that the physical body, and the desires springing from it, can have negative consequences for yourself and others when not controlled.

I believe that at it's core the OT shows this, and that this is not flawed. However, the OT was still written by men, men with agendas, traditions and history. The OT may contain plenty of esoteric and spiritual content, even if I can't get at it, but outwardly at least I think it is nothing more than a collection of the history and traditions of an old-school culture.

The only real reason that I can think of that Jesus has improved on the rules of the OT is that what he teaches is simpler, showing with greater clarity how to achieve being a good person. The differnece between the NT and OT in my opinion, is the method to make people do good, in the OT this is through strict rules, and in the NT it is shown though the Golden Rule.

To use your analogy, the medical advisor isn't giving flawed information, but he is making all information accesible. Everyone can use this information, some people don't understand it properly, other people use it merely as an end to get paid, and there are rare people who will just go around and treat people. The purpose of medicine is to heal people, not to make money, or anything else, but the end is to heal person. In the same way the purpose of morality is to be good, although others may use it to fulfill their own ends.

Hopefully that's clear enough, just shout me if I'm making no sense.

Masero

2008-02-29, 22:02

Yes but you're dismissing the idea that a God could exist.

You're being close-minded.

You're requiring proof when in fact, whether God was a clock-winder, a God that was involved with his people, 3,000 Gods, or a four headed hyrda, the deity would not need a reason to give you proof.

The burden of proof exists on a human plane. And most of the time, people bullshit people and make up statistics based on the idea that "proof" is necessary and proper for things to work. Sometimes you don't need proof. Sometimes it can't be proven. I've seen people break the laws of physics before. They didn't write a dissertation on why it happened. They just said "Oh shit, I got lucky".

But still. You haven't proven to me that God doesn't exist, just as I can't prove to you his existence. You can be intolerant all you want but it only shows your lack of maturity as a human being and your arrogance.

So, prove to me God doesn't exist and then you can shout all you want about an imaginary man.

Or maybe you're just someone who doesn't have faith in anything, so you lash out at everything in an attempt to sound fearless and monstrous. It's okay, little man syndrome happens to people sometime. They're too scared to believe they might be wrong for once so they get aggressive and try to act like a higher intellectual.

godfather89

2008-02-29, 23:49

How does the fact that I was brought into a desire for Christianity originally through fear mean that the seed sown to me was in the bushes?

The parable of the seeds was to teach that you are to plant seeds as you walk through life. If a person is cultivated into a Christian I'd say their seed was planted in rich soil. Or else they wouldn't be a Christian.

I think that not wanting to go to Hell is a very good reason to repent. You don't wanna suffer eternal separation from God, so you ask for forgiveness and start a change in your life to fix what was wrong.

If there's an actual change in your life, whether it's based originally on fear or on the desire to know God or because monkeys are crawling out of your rectum shouldn't really matter. What matters is the content of your heart and if it takes fear to convince you then that's God's way of reaching your ear.

Fear is a means to control people... If God loves you than fear is not needed to bring you to him. I said it earlier: "The Father's Will is Our True Will..."

If thats what you believe fine... To me where the seeds fall represent who is going to receive the full teaching, and the only one who is going to represent the full experience is the one seed that is the one that falls on good ground, all the others are not. They are going to get nowhere or not get very far before they are consumed by [fill-in the negativity] or choke off by the [fill-in in the negativity]. From the position I am standing you are choked off by fear to follow Christianity.

You know the Ego is programmed to: Run from Pain to Get To Pleasure -> The ego represents quite essentially satan in the Bible. The point I am trying to make is that if your going to take up a religion it is because, you wanted to, you agreed with what it has to say, not because, "I need to escape pain to get to pleasure" God knows your real intentions and if your intention is to just not suffer he knows that, so be honest with yourself and try to find god in your own life instead of just worshipping God.

Masero

2008-02-29, 23:59

BrokeProphet

2008-03-01, 01:15

Yes but you're dismissing the idea that a God could exist.

Anything can exist and anything can happen, but before I put any stock in it, I will require at the very least ONE shred of evidence. I, unlike you do not believe everything I read.

You're being close-minded.

Says a person who requires an omnipowerful being in the universe to explain what is not yet understood. As you can see from my previous statement I am not being close minded. I am just not being as guilible as a theist.

You're requiring proof when in fact, whether God was a clock-winder, a God that was involved with his people, 3,000 Gods, or a four headed hyrda, the deity would not need a reason to give you proof.

A deity that shows no proof is either:

A) Not interested in my belief in them.
B) A fantasy concocted by primitive peoples to tell the weak minded what to do.

The burden of proof exists on a human plane.

Excellent. Since you are a human conversing with me (another human) on the human plane, and making outrageous assertions, feel free to grasp that burden.

So, prove to me God doesn't exist and then you can shout all you want about an imaginary man.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is to be hoped you grasp this simple concept one day. Keep trying.

Or maybe you're just someone who doesn't have faith in anything, so you lash out at everything in an attempt to sound fearless and monstrous. It's okay, little man syndrome happens to people sometime. They're too scared to believe they might be wrong for once so they get aggressive and try to act like a higher intellectual.

Did you use your mind powers to find out exactly who I am? GET OUT OF MY HEAD WIZARD!

Seriously, your pitiful attempt at psychoanalysis has failed. Stick to bullshit like christianity, psionics and such, it does not require any higher education in fields of psychology. Thanks for playing, though.

AngryFemme

2008-03-01, 01:56

From the position I am standing you are choked off by fear to follow Christianity.

From the position I am standing in, you are choked off by personal cathartic fantasies to follow Gnosticism. No offense, godfather.

Your brand of God © may not require worship, but that in itself doesn't really remove it that far from the Christian concept of there being a supreme being that Lords over the universe, there to free us individually from the rigors of our material world.

Rust

2008-03-01, 02:13

There. I have answered your question. It's not that Jesus is "perfect-erer" is that the times, situations, and consequences have changed.

Whether things have change shouldn't matter. A perfect moral guideline should be able to take into consideration any and all changes that could possibly occur. We're not talking about a half-assed attempt by man to create a guideline. We're talking about a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient god that creates perfection.

Rust

2008-03-01, 02:26

Instead I believe that these moral guidelines are 'inspired by God'. By this I mean that while thinking, meditating, considering or whatever you want to call it, on God, certain ideas will enter into the individual considering God; they are not 'Given' to the individual directly, but they are gained by the individuals own thoughts.

How is that any different from just thinking something? How can you tell the difference between something that has been "inspired by God" and something someone made up? Who decides which is which?

. However, the OT was still written by men, men with agendas, traditions and history. The OT may contain plenty of esoteric and spiritual content, even if I can't get at it, but outwardly at least I think it is nothing more than a collection of the history and traditions of an old-school culture.The NT was also written by men with agendas traditions and history. All criticisms of the OT in this respect apply to the NT...

The only real reason that I can think of that Jesus has improved on the rules of the OT is that what he teaches is simpler, showing with greater clarity how to achieve being a good person. The differnece between the NT and OT in my opinion, is the method to make people do good, in the OT this is through strict rules, and in the NT it is shown though the Golden Rule.Simplicity is the only improvement? So then if someone were able to grasp the complex teachings in OT, he would be morally correct if he followed them?

To use an analogy:

Imagine a you want to reach a destination. There are two paths. One is simpler than the other, but both get you to the same place. It would make sense to take the simpler path, but we wouldn't be incorrect (i.e. we wouldn't arrive somewhere else) if we took the less simple path, right?

Do you think both the OT guidelines and the NT guidelines take you to the same destination? That is, do you think they are both ultimately morally correct? If so, and if the main difference is one of simplicity, I'd say my question still stands essentially: You would still be holding the position that people following the OT way of doing things, are ultimately morally correct. That seems rather disgusting to me; much like the WBC seems disgusting.

To use your analogy, the medical advisor isn't giving flawed information, but he is making all information accesible. Everyone can use this information, some people don't understand it properly, other people use it merely as an end to get paid, and there are rare people who will just go around and treat people. The purpose of medicine is to heal people, not to make money, or anything else, but the end is to heal person. In the same way the purpose of morality is to be good, although others may use it to fulfill their own ends.
Well to be fair, according to you, in this analogy:

The Doctor did initially give out flawed information (or "made flawed information accessible", then he gave out an improved version of the information (or "made an improved version of the information accessible"), yet after seeing that countless people did not understand the information and were not following it correctly... he hasn't changed anything even though he has the power to do so. I would argue the same applies still: the Doctor would be tried. If not criminally, then certainly in the court of public opinion.

Masero

2008-03-01, 07:01

Whether things have change shouldn't matter. A perfect moral guideline should be able to take into consideration any and all changes that could possibly occur. We're not talking about a half-assed attempt by man to create a guideline. We're talking about a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient god that creates perfection.

But his morals were still the same in both places. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, etc. But at that time there was no redeemer so death was the only option for those that transgressed and did not repent. Now with a redeemer you can transgress and instead of having to make a giant sacrifice to appease God, you just speak through the Holy Spirit.

It's putting a middle man in the way so death isn't the only option anymore, therefore you can be more forgiving for sins (such as homosexuality, adultery, etc) because there's someone who paid the ultimate sacrifice for those that follow his teachings and believe on him.

I know that I might sound like a broken record on this, but I really do see this as a simple thing. I really don't intend to upset you by repeating myself. I just don't really see any easier way of saying it, Rust. God would be a constant and the addition of a middle man to take the blame means that he can still be the same, but not have to kill people for their first fuck up, but can spend eternity with them because of the sacrifice given by Christ Jesus.

Rust

2008-03-01, 16:54

But his morals were still the same in both places. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, etc. But at that time there was no redeemer so death was the only option for those that transgressed and did not repent. Now with a redeemer you can transgress and instead of having to make a giant sacrifice to appease God, you just speak through the Holy Spirit.

That means there is another option. That doesn't mean that the previous option, which is supposed to be perfect, suddeny disappears or becomes immoral. We can still use the OT moral guidelines with the assurance that because they are perfect, we're being morally good.

That's exactly what the WBC is doing.

Masero

2008-03-01, 17:15

But they are destroying any chance for that person's spiritual afterlife according to their own rules. Basically they're playing God. But then again, I guess in some sick sense, they're "Being more like the Father".

Rust

2008-03-01, 17:21

Who says "they are destroying any chance for that person's spiritual afterlife"? You don't decide that, God does.

Besides, the point is that we've concluded that if the WBC follows the OT way of doing things, they are still being morally correct... prety much the whole disussion of this thread!

Masero

2008-03-01, 17:26

Well... think of it this way

Everyday I'm around a certain person at school they drive me up a wall and make me wanna stab them in the neck until they stop struggling and I watch the life flutter from their eyes, yeah it's kinda wicked but whatever... If I were to actually act on that impulse and kill them, what if they were ambivalent about Christianity, sitting on the fence and weighing out their yes's and no's? I would have personally placed them in Hell without giving them a chance to figure out what they wanted.

That alone is a reason that I think it's wrong to take the life of another human.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-01, 22:29

Masero

2008-03-01, 22:49

Are you suggesting that without your belief in God you would be a murderer?

Also, God showed little mercy to heathens. When God said "Stone them faggots" He did not have to add "I will send their souls straight to hell" b/c it is pretty much implied.

That was a hypothetical example. I don't want to stab anyone in the neck until they stop moving.

There wasn't a hell back then, so obviously he didn't send them to Hell. Thanks for playing.

Rust

2008-03-01, 23:35

If I were to actually act on that impulse and kill them, what if they were ambivalent about Christianity, sitting on the fence and weighing out their yes's and no's? I would have personally placed them in Hell without giving them a chance to figure out what they wanted.

That alone is a reason that I think it's wrong to take the life of another human.

1. Ultimately the Christian god decides if they are placed in hell or not. You don't decide anything. You cannot say you placed them anywhere.

2. Arguably an omniscient god should have the knowledge of what that person's choice would have been had you not killed him. So he could decide where to send them based on that.

[This, of course, is ignoring the problem of omniscience for the sake of argument]

3. More importantly: Whether you think something is wrong or not is irrelevant. What is relevant would be the objective (according to Christians) morality of the bible.

The fact remains that if the OT morality is perfect, then arguably the WBC is completely justified in what they are doing. That's it. What you think is wrong or what would be "destroying any chance for that person's spiritual afterlife" or anything else really, would not change this point. Please stop bringing up these things when they have little to do with the matter at hand.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-02, 00:37

That was a hypothetical example. I don't want to stab anyone in the neck until they stop moving.

There wasn't a hell back then, so obviously he didn't send them to Hell. Thanks for playing.

There was a hell in the Old Testament. It appears some 30 times. It is the Jewish concept of Hell (translated from Sheol). Sheol was divided into two compartments. Sheol contained a place for both the torment of wicked dead and the comfort of the righteous dead. The Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world.

To say that there was not a hell back then shows a complete misunderstanding of your own religion, on your part. Educate yourself, just a bit, before you speak again. If we are playing, I think I am winning. :)

Masero

2008-03-02, 07:38

If you're wanting to nickel and dime... you're wrong. Hell wasn't around. We already went over sheol and abraham's bosom. Just quit plz.

TruthWielder

2008-03-02, 23:02

To be fair, he didn't say it was misleading per se, but that's a necessary consequence of the belief that the OT guidelines are imperfect and that god could have given perfect ones.

If he is omnipotent and omniscient, and thus could have given perfect moral guidelines, yet didn't, then he deliberately chose to give misleading moral information.

So then the answer to the question is that you believe the OT guidelines are imperfect? If B is superior to A, then A is not perfect, by definition.

I believe the only imperfect factor is human beings. Lets not forget that not even hardcore christians believe that the bible is a magical book that one day fell from heaven into the hands of St. Peter.

"Oh shit, perfect rules for life!"

I have to concede that all the bible is imperfect because it has been molded by human hands and hearts. The perfection is found in the truths therein. The Golden rule, much of the psalms and proverbs, the sermon on the mount, the ten commandments. I posit that there are invariable and undeniable truths located therein. They are basically the words of Jesus. Other than that? The rest, to me, is just commentary. Most of which is worth studying or listening to, but no word in the Bible, not one sentence is worth taking blindly. Why? Because undoubtedly, the light of reason and the moral law that can shine within us is greater than anything written on any parchment. If we use that as the metaphysical spectacles with which we view religious text, we can see what is true and what is sacred with thoughfulness and clarity and the understanding of what is wrong and perverse.

I would not say either A or B is "perfect" in the sense that it reflects an absolute historical truth, our concept of perfect must be clarified, but I would definitely say that each contain wisdom that must be viewed correctly. For a Christian, the words of Jesus are what most accurately conveys lifes truths.

Concerning your understanding of the nature of God, you must first understand that in Genesis human beings are clearly given their bane and beauty: Choice.

The consequences of choice are reflected in all human action. With this understanding you see that anything that is misleading in the bible, just like all human pettiness and struggle, comes from human choices. It does not coincide with the machinations of the God to change human choices or self consciously alter reality to break lines of causation. This would destroy humanity by taking away all their power found in choice. God wants human beings to choose to accept him, not blindly follow him. This is why he only changes things when human beings ask him to. This is the nature of prayer, communal with God. Prayer is most effective when focusing on God and humbling yourself because He will not be able to affect a life filled with its own airs and missteps and perversions that are antithetical to the laws of reality, Gods laws.

godfather89

2008-03-03, 04:52

I already posted that later, during a period of solitude, I put my nose to the grind and asked myself if Christianity is really what I wanted to believe in, studying it from different perspectives. How does the fact that, as a child, I was intrigued out of fear but later did soul-searching and studied extensively = I let fear ruin my life and drive me towards Christianity so therefore I'm not a Christian?

You said it yourself, you let fear drive you to get to Christ, the ONLY reason why you, I or anyone else would be a Christian is so I dont burn in hell and suffer for eternity. In the orthodox view Christ is essentially holding a spiritual gun to your soul and saying "Worship me or Die!" However, to the Gnostic view Christ offers wisdom its up to YOU TO decide to take it if you do than good if not than you may come back to it yet again perhaps realize that what is in front of you is not all there is.

Now, I am not trying to convert you after all, where you are is where you should be being that is were you feel your heart is. Dont change views if you feel obligated to changing. Change because you really want to.

Rust

2008-03-03, 13:26

I believe the only imperfect factor is human beings.
...
I have to concede that all the bible is imperfect because it has been molded by human hands and hearts. The perfection is found in the truths therein. The Golden rule, much of the psalms and proverbs, the sermon on the mount, the ten commandments. I posit that there are invariable and undeniable truths located therein.

You cannot remove the "imperfect factor" (i.e. human beings according to you) in any of those "truths therein". You will always be looking at commentary, teachings, and allegories influenced by human beings.

So how can you know what is a truth? Who or what decides? Each individual person through "the light of reason and the moral law that can shine within us"? Then that's no "truth" at all! Truth isn't relative, or it ceased to be true.

With this understanding you see that anything that is misleading in the bible, just like all human pettiness and struggle, comes from human choices.

Not really. If an omnipotent god exists - one that can create and/or inspire a text that cannot be corrupted by humans yet deliberately does not do so, then I would argue that he is at the root of the misleading. He delbieratly allows his "truths" to be corrupted, and it has nothing to do with "choice" because an omnipotent being has the power to remove it as a choice to being with (much like I cannot defy gravity at will, he could make it so that we cannot corrupt his "truths" at will. We don't say we lack a free will just because we cannot defy gravity, similarly we would't be lacking free will if he made something else impossible).

It does not coincide with the machinations of the God to change human choices or self consciously alter reality to break lines of causation. This would destroy humanity by taking away all their power found in choice. God wants human beings to choose to accept him, not blindly follow him. This is why he only changes things when human beings ask him to. This is the nature of prayer, communal with God. Prayer is most effective when focusing on God and humbling yourself because He will not be able to affect a life filled with its own airs and missteps and perversions that are antithetical to the laws of reality, Gods laws.

Sorry but you're getting way ahead of yourself. Not only is this not really relevant in our conversation, but you have no evidence that's the case. No offense, but I would think you have no fucking clue when god "changes things" let alone why.

TruthWielder

2008-03-03, 18:26

You cannot remove the "imperfect factor" (i.e. human beings according to you) in any of those "truths therein". You will always be looking at commentary, teachings, and allegories influenced by human beings.

So how can you know what is a truth? Who or what decides? Each individual person through "the light of reason and the moral law that can shine within us"? Then that's no "truth" at all! Truth isn't relative, or it ceased to be true.

Not really. If an omnipotent god exists - one that can create and/or inspire a text that cannot be corrupted by humans yet deliberately does not do so, then I would argue that he is at the root of the misleading. He delbieratly allows his "truths" to be corrupted, and it has nothing to do with "choice" because an omnipotent being has the power to remove it as a choice to being with (much like I cannot defy gravity at will, he could make it so that we cannot corrupt his "truths" at will. We don't say we lack a free will just because we cannot defy gravity, similarly we would't be lacking free will if he made something else impossible).

Sorry but you're getting way ahead of yourself. Not only is this not really relevant in our conversation, but you have no evidence that's the case. No offense, but I would think you have no fucking clue when god "changes things" let alone why.

You bring up some good points but overlook and misunderstand some things.

Of course when looking at scripture you will always be looking at something that has been created/changed/revised/corrupted/purified/destroyed by human beings. Human beings capable of fault through the acceptance of a false idea. However, each human being on this earth contains the capabilities of reason, morality, and the senses. Objective understanding is reached through these means. Using these three gifts in concert when ascertaining the validity of any argument or claim one will at least arrive at better understanding and at best, Ultimate truth. This search for this ultimate truth is what sages and monks put away material lives for. Anyway, when I assert that there is truth in the text that I mentioned I mean to say that, by way of reason, others and I have found this or that to be valid. You can agree or not, but I suppose you can see that what is important is that you see for yourself.

Remember that omnipotence does not suggest the unabashed use of power to produce material effects or otherwise. Your forgetting the importance of choice and freedom in human existence. Without this choice or freedom life would be pointless, the cycle of determination would have no drive or motive if it is inescapable. God gave human beings this free choice in order to exercise the ultimate control, power and responsibilty over their own destiny. That is why there are things that are wrong and things that are right, just and unjust, true and false. Because the responsibility is directly in our hands. God intervenes in our world insomuch as one asks for him. This is why I brought up prayer. So you see, changing history, unlike changing physical laws of the universe that are irrelevant to existence, would obliterate humanity itself. This is would in no way be stifled by God.

Gods truths cannot be corrupted because they are not inherent in any paper or parchment. Saying that Gods truths are corrupted when someone decides to change the bible makes as much sense as saying the Universe equals nothing when your four year old niece draws a zero on a piece of paper. Truths are materialized within the person who uses virtue, reason, and experience to deduce it, not the book they are reading from. This piety, this holiness, this Godliness is synonymous to what anyone of any spiritual inclination would state makes someone a good person.

Relax rust. No, I can't offer direct insight into the nature of God, but by christian teachings and life experience I've come to understand that God will help you out when you ask.
Sorry if I got ahead of myself with the prayer bit. Youre right, I have no outright proof that my life has been changed by prayer, but I have to suggest here to anyone who cares to listen...pray.

I doesn't have to be a big deal. Just state your feelings and observations to God. He listens. When your in trouble, you have shit going on and dont think things will turn out ok, just open your heart a bit, have faith, and ask God for a little help.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-03, 20:26

If you're wanting to nickel and dime... you're wrong. Hell wasn't around. We already went over sheol and abraham's bosom. Just quit plz.

Sheol was divided into two compartments. Sheol contained a place for both the torment of wicked dead and the comfort of the righteous dead. The Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world.

The compartment that contains a place for the torment of the wicked dead, sounds a lot like hell to me. I suppose you can debate a difference between these to mythological planes of existence, but what would be the point.

You have still failed to address why the WBC is so wrong for practicing a different part of your bible you yourself do not b/c

A) everyone else in your community does not
B) in your hyposcrisy you have found this particular thing distasteful and choose to belief in what ever parts you like best.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-03, 20:30

I doesn't have to be a big deal. Just state your feelings and observations to God. He listens. When your in trouble, you have shit going on and dont think things will turn out ok, just open your heart a bit, have faith, and ask God for a little help.

Self reflection is not a big deal. It is a simple way for a person to sit quietly and work shit out in their minds THEMSELVES without need for ANY external influences whatsoever.

You think someone who prays to a different God gets less results? Think someone meditating gets less results?

You call it prayer, I call it self reflection and problem solving skills that nearly every human being possesses to some degree.

Nothing magical or mystical here. NOTHING.

TruthWielder

2008-03-03, 21:28

Self reflection is not a big deal. It is a simple way for a person to sit quietly and work shit out in their minds THEMSELVES without need for ANY external influences whatsoever.

You think someone who prays to a different God gets less results? Think someone meditating gets less results?

You call it prayer, I call it self reflection and problem solving skills that nearly every human being possesses to some degree.

Nothing magical or mystical here. NOTHING.

Thats not quite what I described.

No, I dont think someone who prays to Brahman, Allah, or the Tao (a rose by any other name?) necessarily gets less results. Its more in the method of simply seeing yourself as one piece of an infinite and constantly moving totality and finding humility in that, and then asking for that totality or the representation of that totality to bend towards you. Envisioning what you dont undestand and reaching out to it. Sure we can work things out for ourselves. Reason, empathy, morality, virtue, sensation.

Magical? No. Mystical? Depends on your perspective. Then again those words just suggest what we dont understand, not that something is beyond the realm of imagination or possibility.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-03, 21:44

Thats not quite what I described.

No, I dont think someone who prays to Brahman, Allah, or the Tao (a rose by any other name?) necessarily gets less results. Its more in the method of simply seeing yourself as one piece of an infinite and constantly moving totality and finding humility in that, and then asking for that totality or the representation of that totality to bend towards you. Envisioning what you dont undestand and reaching out to it. Sure we can work things out for ourselves. Reason, empathy, morality, virtue, sensation.

Magical? No. Mystical? Depends on your perspective. Then again those words just suggest what we dont understand, not that something is beyond the realm of imagination or possibility.

I believe we can and do understand self reflection pretty well. It is not (like many, many, many things) completely understood, but is understood well enough to stop denoting it as mystical or magical from any realistic perspective.

On a side note:

I dont know if you believe through meditation we can heighten our perceptions enough to see into mystical realms. Personally, I dont think our perceptions can percieve any potential other dimensions, realms (including those of spiritual nature) or dimensional beings, ANY MORE than a cockroach can ever have the ability to read a book.

If there are other dimensions out there, and we CAN in fact see or interact with them in some way, science will find the answer for us. Not a priest, not a mystic, a scientist will.

Science is the place for the greatest mysteries and most interesting things in the universe. There are so many things that science does not fully understand or understands partially. I love the theories and explanations.

For example: The planet Earth has regular periods of mass extinction. I forget what it is like every 26 million years or something. It has a pattern and science has theorized why. One theory is that our sun has a companion star. This companion star rotates our sun every 26 million years or so. When the companion (named nemesis) gets close it disrupts the kyhber belt and sends millions of huge asteriods hurtling towards our sun. We take some nasty hits, and viola every 26 million years 96% of all life is ended on Earth.

That is only a theory and that is the amount of stock I put it in. Interesting to think about though. I bring it up b/c I believe a Christian would simply say "God does it" and leave it at that, and we would never know the REAL cause of it. Science may try to work on an asteroid shield using telsa's old idea of heating the ionosphere, or some other solution.

My point is science is so much more facinationg than religions. Many times I find that in science, truth (science) IS stranger than fiction (religions).

Rust

2008-03-04, 01:48

Objective understanding is reached through these means. Using these three gifts in concert when ascertaining the validity of any argument or claim one will at least arrive at better understanding and at best, Ultimate truth. This search for this ultimate truth is what sages and monks put away material lives for. Anyway, when I assert that there is truth in the text that I mentioned I mean to say that, by way of reason, others and I have found this or that to be valid. You can agree or not, but I suppose you can see that what is important is that you see for yourself.

So then the "truth" is no truth at all? It's subjective?

You can talk about the "Ultimate truth" all you want but unless you manage to point out a proven way to reach this "Ultimate truth" (or even just getting close to it), a way were one can distinguish the truths from falsities or things that are made up, you've accomplished absolutely nothing.

Remember that omnipotence does not suggest the unabashed use of power to produce material effects or otherwise. Your forgetting the importance of choice and freedom in human existence.I would say I'm not forgetting the importance of choice, I just understand the meaning of omnipotence and it seems you do not.

Omnipotence means he can preserve choice, while at the same time intervening however much he wants. You're essentially saying he's omnipotent... but he can't do this. That does not follow, in fact, the opposite follows: we can say, with absolute certainty, that he can do that and more!

So he can make life have meaning and a "point" even if there was no choice or freedom. More importantly he can even preserve this choice or freedom no matter how impossible that may seem to you!

Gods truths cannot be corrupted because they are not inherent in any paper or parchment. Saying that Gods truths are corrupted when someone decides to change the bible makes as much sense as saying the Universe equals nothing when your four year old niece draws a zero on a piece of paper.I meant they are corrupted in the sense of how human beings begin to practice them and/or live them. They are living, believing, preaching, ..., so-called "truths" that do not actually represent God's will. God can stop that at any time. He chooses not to.

TruthWielder

2008-03-04, 04:31

So then the "truth" is no truth at all? It's subjective?

You can talk about the "Ultimate truth" all you want but unless you manage to point out a proven way to reach this "Ultimate truth" (or even just getting close to it), a way were one can distinguish the truths from falsities or things that are made up, you've accomplished absolutely nothing.

I would say I'm not forgetting the importance of choice, I just understand the meaning of omnipotence and it seems you do not.

Omnipotence means he can preserve choice, while at the same time intervening however much he wants. You're essentially saying he's omnipotent... but he can't do this. That does not follow, in fact, the opposite follows: we can say, with absolute certainty, that he can do that and more!

So he can make life have meaning and a "point" even if there was no choice or freedom. More importantly he can even preserve this choice or freedom no matter how impossible that may seem to you!

I meant they are corrupted in the sense of how human beings begin to practice them and/or live them. They are living, believing, preaching, ..., so-called "truths" that do not actually represent God's will. God can stop that at any time. He chooses not to.

I hope your not angry.

Let me clarify "ultimate truth". This is also an answer to broke prophets question of whether I believe in achieving alternate realities or higher states of being though forgive me if at the moment I dont answer why (kinda lazy at the moment, will do later). Yes, I do believe in such a thing. By "ultimate truth" I mean enlightenment, higher wisdom, and understanding of both the nature of oneself, the universe, and ones place in it. People of many religions undergo this practice of meditation and letting go of the ego to become closer to God. From Christians to Buddhists. That I know of based on my knowledge of theology and personal experience the way to ultimate truth is basically to let go of selfish desire/materialism and focus only on existence. This is generally achieved by different forms of meditation. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

The way one distinguishes truth from falsities is by using reason, morality, and the senses.

I understand the meaning of omnipotence. I never said that God is unable to bend reality to his arbitrary will. I said that he would not do so to us because to do so would negate our purpose and existence by nullifying causation. Because it is not his will to do so. If he did, purpose and existence would be nullfied. If not, human beings may still come to God by choice, by acceptance. This part is an essential part of our reality and relationship with God. Your saying something similar to "can God make a rock so heavy he cant lift it? Yes!!" Well I dunno man, neither do you. You are unable to make a value judgment on the Gods powers and neither am I, but I would hold that he is still omnipotent.

By reason I know our reality conforms to set boundaries, namely, no two living contradictions (we have choice, we do not have choice) will exist. If God did this, I would assume that our reality as we know it would cease to be. That sort of omnipotence, that I would assert is within Gods capability, in unfathomable to me as it would bend our reality in directions that would lead to undefinable and thus, undebatable results.

So human beings are the imperfect ones and the misinterpret Gods law? That one sounds familiar :p

God chooses not to stop it. I've already shown you why.

KamikazePimp

2008-03-04, 05:21

Damm! This is the biggest thread hijacking I've ever seen. All those pages and NOTHING that has to do with the WBC!
_________________
--KP

Masero

2008-03-04, 06:10

well, TW, the whole pre-destination/free will thing is very touchy subject.

I don't think it really matters in the end, whether which one is right (or both, since that is possible in a paradoxical kind of way), but I do think that, depending on the situation, God can intervene in certain places for certain people that he wouldn't for others. I don't know if you'd call it playing favorites (that would also be another rabbit trail) or if he's just giving a chance to someone who needs it... but I think that you'd have to approach any talks of PD/FW as something that most people would never be able to appropriately advise about.

My thoughts on it are that God knows our ending and beginning, whether we find our "ultimate truth" (and when/where/how) as you call it and if we don't, giving most people the free will to decide how the rest goes into place. I think He will divinely intervene for some things, putting us into positions or giving us life's random miracles sometimes, but ultimately we decide a good portion of our lives. What some would call "luck" others would say is the intervention of God; still others would say it's just random chance.

Either way, both are spoken of in the Bible and neither negate the idea of the other in the context they are used.

Picture a bow. It's curved at the top and straight at the bottom. Now separate the two and make the bow about an inch wider/longer than the straight line where the ends are. The straight line (string of the bow) is what you can comprehend and experience as a human, but the bow is what God comprehends. He is before and after you. He will see your ending and your beginning, two things which you won't necessarily see.

As a monotheist of any kind (maybe even a polytheist) you can say that we focus too much on how we came to fruition and how we're going to end instead of loving, being loved, and living a full and wonderful life.

You can also use this Bow & String analogy for non-religious beliefs too. The bow is how long we have existed and will exist and the string is how long we, personally, exist. We are but a speck in the framework, so to try and comprehend the Bow's beginning and end is something that takes alot of effort and won't be attained by many people.

As an atheist one could say that we spend too much time trying to figure out "where we came from and where we're going" instead of enjoying life and doing good work.

ganjaninja

2008-03-04, 09:09

I'm dying for one of those 'God Hates You' signs.

"'God Hates Fags' - though elliptical - is a profound theological statement, which the world needs to hear more than it needs oxygen, water and bread."

Oxygen, water, *and* bread!?

Rust

2008-03-04, 15:48

I hope your not angry.

I hope you don't actually care whether I'm angry or not, or believe you can actually conclude I'm angry by reading something I said on the Internet.

The way one distinguishes truth from falsities is by using reason, morality, and the senses.

Are these things subjective or objective? Will everyone be able to distinguish the truths correctly? The same way? Like I said, if how we arrive at truth depends on the person, then you have no truth. It's subjective. I can reach enlightenment by doing the opposite of what you claim.

I understand the meaning of omnipotence. I never said that God is unable to bend reality to his arbitrary will. I said that he would not do so to us because to do so would negate our purpose and existence by nullifying causation.You just did...

"...because to do so would negate our purpose and existence by nullifying causation"

That means that god cannot change certain things in reality without negating our purpose and existence by nullifying causation... yet omnipotence means he can change those things and he can do with without nullifying causation.

Your saying something similar to "can God make a rock so heavy he cant lift it? Yes!!" Well I dunno man, neither do you. You are unable to make a value judgment on the Gods powers and neither am I, but I would hold that he is still omnipotent.I can make the judgment just fine if we have basic definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is defined as "having unlimited power" by the dictionary. I would suggest we use that definition but lets see all the alternatives:

These are the possibilities (assuming he exists in the first place of course):

1. God has unlimited power: God has the power to do everything. God has the power to do X, where X can be anything you say or imagine.

2. God has limited power: God has the power to do some things, but not everything.

3. God doesn't have power: He can't do anything.

Using number one allows me to reach a conclusion of what God can do, namely everything. I cannot reach that conclusion with number two; the only conclusion I can reach is that he can do one or more things, but not everything. What these things are I cannot know. Number three, like number one, allows me to reach a conclusion on what he can do, namely nothing.

Which do you propose we use? If we use number 1, my point stands. If we use number 2, you cannot claim he can bend reality to fit his arbitrary will or any other things you may attribute to god (be it creation, ultimate truth...). If we use number 3, we have a useless sack of shit. Which is it?

God chooses not to stop it. I've already shown you why.No you assume he chooses not to stop it, and the reason you've given as to why has many problems.

Either he is omnipotent and can do anything and everything - in which case he can definitely change any aspect of reality he wants without nullifying causation no matter how impossible that may be - or he isn't omnipotent and cannot do everything, and thus you have no clue what he can or cannot do!

godfather89

2008-03-04, 16:01

From the position I am standing in, you are choked off by personal cathartic fantasies to follow Gnosticism. No offense, godfather.

Your brand of God © may not require worship, but that in itself doesn't really remove it that far from the Christian concept of there being a supreme being that Lords over the universe, there to free us individually from the rigors of our material world.

To be honest I am still learning of Gnosticism, in this religion if you come to it from the heart you are always learning. Most of what I say is my own understanding, if I learn another truth to Gnosticism that contradicts what I think I know, I have no choice but to incorporate that.

The Christian God in Christianity made this universe. The Gnostic God:
1) Did not make the universe.
2) Is not a personalized being, it has no body, to think of it would only be a image of it, but not the source itself.
3) The transcendent source cannot be found or known, only its immanent aspect can be known which is referred to as The Christos.
4) Lords over everything but nothing Lords over it because, it sustains everything (Visible and Invisible).

For example:
You did not create a dog but you sustain a dog's life by helping to fulfill its needs. <-- Same concept applies with The Gnostic Idea of God to my understanding. He didnt make our physical bodies yet the reality we live in exist so our physical bodies can be sustained by what it needs (food, shelter and clothes).

I am not here to say: "Your Right, Your Wrong" Everyone is on there path for a reason, atheist / theist / deist whatever...

Masero

2008-03-04, 16:13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

http://www.spiritual.com.au/articles/religion/jesus-christos-gnostic-perspective.htm

I'm kinda not seeing what you're saying there about Gnosticism being wholly different. It sounds almost the same.

godfather89

2008-03-06, 05:21

Gnosticism is at the heart of all western religions but I tell you Gnosticism is also different from Christianity. Truth has been interpreted in many different ways (this explains many traditions of religion and spirituality). Gnosticism is a mind-model spirituality (e.g. Buddhism) not society based model of religion like Christianity. The goal of the Gnostic is to know yourself in such away that its life altering (you may not change your personality but you will just know)

This Knowing however has been attack by orthodoxy as magical, heretical what are they trying to hide? Why do they not want me to know myself? What will happen? If Gnosticism is not the "right way" than why make a big stink out of it? After all I dont see the church rigorously attacking Buddhism or Taoism as much as they attack the Gnostic!

This is why Gnosticism is always attacked and why there is a disinformation campaign out there against them, you must look out what you read, Gnosticism is not just a "read about it, now I understand it type of spiritual path." Intellectual grasping of Gnosticism is only the start, I learned that one the hard way! lol

BrokeProphet

2008-03-06, 21:13

TruthWielder

2008-03-07, 03:45

I hope you don't actually care whether I'm angry or not, or believe you can actually conclude I'm angry by reading something I said on the Internet.

Are these things subjective or objective? Will everyone be able to distinguish the truths correctly? The same way? Like I said, if how we arrive at truth depends on the person, then you have no truth. It's subjective. I can reach enlightenment by doing the opposite of what you claim.

You just did...

"...because to do so would negate our purpose and existence by nullifying causation"

That means that god cannot change certain things in reality without negating our purpose and existence by nullifying causation... yet omnipotence means he can change those things and he can do with without nullifying causation.

I can make the judgment just fine if we have basic definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is defined as "having unlimited power" by the dictionary. I would suggest we use that definition but lets see all the alternatives:

These are the possibilities (assuming he exists in the first place of course):

1. God has unlimited power: God has the power to do everything. God has the power to do X, where X can be anything you say or imagine.

2. God has limited power: God has the power to do some things, but not everything.

3. God doesn't have power: He can't do anything.

Using number one allows me to reach a conclusion of what God can do, namely everything. I cannot reach that conclusion with number two; the only conclusion I can reach is that he can do one or more things, but not everything. What these things are I cannot know. Number three, like number one, allows me to reach a conclusion on what he can do, namely nothing.

Which do you propose we use? If we use number 1, my point stands. If we use number 2, you cannot claim he can bend reality to fit his arbitrary will or any other things you may attribute to god (be it creation, ultimate truth...). If we use number 3, we have a useless sack of shit. Which is it?

No you assume he chooses not to stop it, and the reason you've given as to why has many problems.

Either he is omnipotent and can do anything and everything - in which case he can definitely change any aspect of reality he wants without nullifying causation no matter how impossible that may be - or he isn't omnipotent and cannot do everything, and thus you have no clue what he can or cannot do!

Touchy? :p

I would say that the only objective truth comes from reason. Morality and the senses can be muddle by passion and pain much easier than reason can but I would still hold that the senses, morality, and reason point towards truth when followed without selfishness or materialism. As humans, we all posses the same potential to use our senses, morality, and reason. This applies to ALL human beings. Yes, people arrive at truth in only one way. It is absolutely objective. I dont see how you would reach enlightenment in any other way and you havent provided an example.

As far as Gods omnipotence is concerned, its not a matter of whether omnipotence can be justified or not as no one has the remotest inkling of what constitutes infinite power. I hold that God could break the rules of reason and cause and effect, thereby breaking the rules of our reality, but I simply could not imagine the effect or the result of such a reality bending (and purposeless) gesture.

So it would definitely be number 1. I'm not sure which point has been made though?

You brought me utter clarity here in regards to the naature of God. I'm realize that the only things that are impossible are the things we believe to be impossible. Hmm. So I stand and assert Gods omnipotence.

Rust

2008-03-07, 03:52

Yes, people arrive at truth in only one way. It is absolutely objective. I dont see how you would reach enlightenment in any other way and you havent provided an example.

Then explain how there are so many different, often contradictory "truths" (or claims of "truth" if you want) out there. You say it's objective, but you've yet to give an objective method, in fact you just said the tools you cite are affected by subjective, personal emotions .. which fits rather well with the existence of the numerous different so-called "truths" people have.

So tell me, how can you tell the difference between them? Who decides what's actually a "truth" and what isn't?

So it would definitely be number 1. I'm not sure which point has been made though?

You said: "I never said that God is unable to bend reality to his arbitrary will. I said that he would not do so to us because to do so would negate our purpose and existence by nullifying causation."

That does not follow if you believe point number one. Point number one allows is to conclude that he must have the power to both bend reality his arbitrary will and still make it so that it would not nullify causation. Thus, this point still stands:

"If an omnipotent god exists - one that can create and/or inspire a text that cannot be corrupted by humans yet deliberately does not do so, then I would argue that he is at the root of the misleading. He deliberately allows his "truths" to be corrupted, and it has nothing to do with "choice" because an omnipotent being has the power to remove it as a choice to being with (much like I cannot defy gravity at will, he could make it so that we cannot corrupt his "truths" at will. We don't say we lack a free will just because we cannot defy gravity, similarly we wouldn't be lacking free will if he made something else impossible)."

I'm realize that the only things that are impossible are the things we believe to be impossible. Hmm. So I stand and assert Gods omnipotence.So it's impossible for something that we don't think is impossible to be impossible?

godfather89

2008-03-07, 05:25

Gnosticism (Greek: γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect spirit, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God

Gnosticism was popular in the Mediterranean and middle eastern regions in the second and third centuries, though some scholars claim it was suppressed and was actually popular as early as the first century, predating Jesus Christ[4] as a dualistic heresy in areas controlled by the Roman Empire when Christianity became its state religion in the fourth century.

It is a whole religion made up of other religious beliefs. One thing can be said of gnosticism, it is lacking in original thought. Gnosticism should not really bash any other religion b/c without those other religions as foundations gnosticism would be a mere fart in the wind.

Gnostics, you should thank every other religion on the planet for providing you with a springboard to launch your mongrel faith.

1st and 2nd Paragraph - Textbook definition of Gnosticism will get you nowhere, to understand Gnosticism is a lot more than mere words. Most of the textbook definitions are not true, they are fed by a disinformation campaign by the orthodoxy!

3rd & 4th Paragraph - So is Christianity, Modern Atheism, Islam, Judaism, all (anti)religious traditions are founded on other previous concepts. Gnosticism has just as much credibility as the next religion or spiritual path, religious or spiritual paths are what is argued about in these forums.

If your going to to say Gnostic's should thank every religious faith as a creative springboard to our "mongrel faith" than I am in within as much right to say atheist should be thankful for every secularist that served as a springboard to your mongrel disbelief.

Masero

2008-03-07, 05:43

1st and 2nd Paragraph - Textbook definition of Gnosticism will get you nowhere, to understand Gnosticism is a lot more than mere words. Most of the textbook definitions are not true, they are fed by a disinformation campaign by the orthodoxy!

3rd & 4th Paragraph - So is Christianity, Modern Atheism, Islam, Judaism, all (anti)religious traditions are founded on other previous concepts. Gnosticism has just as much credibility as the next religion or spiritual path, religious or spiritual paths are what is argued about in these forums.

If your going to to say Gnostic's should thank every religious faith as a creative springboard to our "mongrel faith" than I am in within as much right to say atheist should be thankful for every secularist that served as a springboard to your mongrel disbelief.

Just stop talking.

No one wants to hear the other guy talk and you're only digging yourself a hole.

godfather89

2008-03-08, 04:11

Just stop talking.

No one wants to hear the other guy talk and you're only digging yourself a hole.

WTF are you talking about? This guy is asking me questions... I answer them because, I want to.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-08, 22:33

If your going to to say Gnostic's should thank every religious faith as a creative springboard to our "mongrel faith" than I am in within as much right to say atheist should be thankful for every secularist that served as a springboard to your mongrel disbelief.

Incorrect.

I disbelieve anything that has no evidence. This is not dependant in anyway upon the existence of religion, past, present, or future.

Your gnostic beliefs, however, are dependant upon which ever host religion or religions your parasitic belief structure attached itself to, to come away with a "new" spiritual belief.

Sorry, that is just the way it is. :)

JesuitArtiste

2008-03-09, 14:10

Your gnostic beliefs, however, are dependant upon which ever host religion or religions your parasitic belief structure attached itself to, to come away with a "new" spiritual belief.

What does this even mean. Seriously.

Masero

2008-03-09, 18:03

What does this even mean. Seriously.

It means that the Gnostic belief system doesn't actually have their own set standards of beliefs. They just pull away from other religions. As of late, people have started lumping Gnosticism with the Abrahamic God of Islam and Judeo-Christianity. Before, the Gnostics were thought to associate with Wiccans and before that simply deists. As religions change hands of popularity Gnostics follow suit, to gain new believers. It causes people like GF89 to say "People have slandered our religion" but really, it's the Gnostic leaders themselves changing the rules and the people who followed refuse to accept the change, but the new group of followers will eat up this new belief of Gnosticism.

godfather89

2008-03-10, 02:37

Incorrect.

I disbelieve anything that has no evidence. This is not dependant in anyway upon the existence of religion, past, present, or future.

Your gnostic beliefs, however, are dependant upon which ever host religion or religions your parasitic belief structure attached itself to, to come away with a "new" spiritual belief.

Sorry, that is just the way it is. :)

Its no more influenced than atheism. There are ideologies that formulate everything, that build on whatever belief system you have. Atheism by existentialism, Christianity by Christ Teachings, Judaism by Moses, Islam by Mohammed, UFO Conspirators by trailer park hillbillies, Gnosticism by Platonism... The idea that people seem to like to "sum things up" is both appalling and insulting.

Now I am not going to look like a hypocrite here I like to sum things up as well, but most people sum up things incorrectly in the hope that words will sum things up and that the words alone will convey the all the truth to said ideology.

Pitiful indeed...

BrokeProphet

2008-03-10, 23:21

Its no more influenced than atheism. There are ideologies that formulate everything, that build on whatever belief system you have. Atheism by existentialism, Christianity by Christ Teachings, Judaism by Moses, Islam by Mohammed, UFO Conspirators by trailer park hillbillies, Gnosticism by Platonism... The idea that people seem to like to "sum things up" is both appalling and insulting.

Now I am not going to look like a hypocrite here I like to sum things up as well, but most people sum up things incorrectly in the hope that words will sum things up and that the words alone will convey the all the truth to said ideology.

Pitiful indeed...

I have already educated you on athiesm, it's roots, and existentialism's beginning, proved you wrong on it in another thread so I will refer you to there.
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2107069&page=2

I imagine you do not like your belief structure summed up, b/c it is unflattering. So..................Let me sum up atheism for you................WITHOUT THEISM.

That is atheism summed up. It is a group of people who do not believe in theism. An atheist's reason for non-belief is irrelevant, as they are highly varied. What is important is that if you meet someone who is without theism, they are an atheist.

You do not like the fact that gnosticism is a parasite of other religions, I understand that. Your dislike does not change what is. Tell me how it is not, or accept it.

godfather89

2008-03-12, 16:15

Yes, yes alright... You know forget it for me to try and get you to understand what I am saying is not working it looks like. So forget it, I surrender this argument to you, so go and do what you do best after winning a logical argument, go ahead and boast about it. Militant atheist such as yourself are wasting a lot of time and energy though, in fact what at one point in these arguments was fueled in part by frustration is now concluded in good humor. What "humor" the fact that I can laugh at myself and at you, the fact that we are both arguing here (as what most people do with this touchy subject) trying to (dis)prove the unknowable.

Oh I laugh, thank you for getting rid of the frustration and Peace be with you.

godfather89

2008-03-13, 01:21

P.S.

F.Y.I. I am not going to bother replying to your attacks on what I believe, if you send a reply I am not going to bother replying back to that reply in regards to what I believe. Not because, "I don't want to hear what you have to say!" Rather because, for me trying to explain it to you; you are not going to understand... Since you feel sufficient in the definition than go about and define it as such, (it may not be correct) but no one apparently can change your mind about it but you.

Do not think "Oh he's not replying so I must be correct!" Wrong, rather imagine this scene: You are talking and talking and talking but not listening; when you do listen you are not understanding. So now the only person you are talking to is yourself. I am not there in the argument, I walked away not out of frustration, not out of "my view is absolutely wrong and your view is absolutely right," but rather because you do not understand.

I am not attacking you, I'm not trying to humiliate you, in fact if we had a PM program on this form this reply would be in the forum of a PM. Nonetheless, go along I will walk my path and you walk yours. I hope for good things on your path through life.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-15, 00:25

Tell me how it is not, or accept it.

I will conclude that you have accepted it, since you have chosen not to tell me how gnosticism qualifies as an orginal thought in ANY sense of the word, as opposed to what I contend: It is a parasitic meme.

You seemed to get upset after I educated you on both the origins of atheism and existentialism. Learning should not upset you, I believe it is only the source of this education that angered you.

What does your gnostic christian belief say about that?

godfather89

2008-03-15, 05:46

I was hoping you'd read the other post but, I will bring it to you:

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9717474&postcount=18
http://egina.blogspot.com/2006/04/10-things-religious-pundits-need-to.html

Thats my final explanation, if you cant grasp it than thats it.
The corresponding links link back to this thread.
Its not frustration; its not submitting to your view; its because you do not understand and unless you grasp the explanation given than thats it I conclude it on grounds that you do not understand.

To quote someone who had been practicing Gnosticism: "Catholic on the outside, Buddhist on the inside. Quotes a lot of dead Greek guys." This isn't some superficial sentence. There is Judas Thomas who traveled to India; but that was only after the Gospel of Thomas, so you couldn't even say "While in India Thomas wrote that Gospel under the influence of the Hindus and Buddhist."

Now the second link I gave you; you can try all you want to find loopholes and contradictions and you might; you will uses these loopholes and contradictions or come up with a so called Logical Question to try and undermine the gnostic message... So go do your thing but keep in mind these matters are not so much in the realm of argument but faith and other spiritual matters. I like you am still learning, if you find something that may alter the gnostic view than I may perhaps make a concession to change my understanding, especially if it was a Gnostic who said it, but keep in mind we are talking ancient gnosticism.

Twisted_Ferret

2008-03-17, 11:09

It means that the Gnostic belief system doesn't actually have their own set standards of beliefs. They just pull away from other religions. As of late, people have started lumping Gnosticism with the Abrahamic God of Islam and Judeo-Christianity. Before, the Gnostics were thought to associate with Wiccans and before that simply deists. As religions change hands of popularity Gnostics follow suit, to gain new believers. It causes people like GF89 to say "People have slandered our religion" but really, it's the Gnostic leaders themselves changing the rules and the people who followed refuse to accept the change, but the new group of followers will eat up this new belief of Gnosticism.
What the hell? Do you know anything about Gnosticism? It far, far, far predates Wiccans, and has always been considered a Judeo-Christian sect - from the time of Valentinius, even! Roman times! Some scholars now believe it actually has more in common with Zoroastrianism, but regardless, no one's changing anything about Gnosticism. The library at Nag Hammadi is as old or older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, fer Ialdabaoth's sake!

godfather89

2008-03-17, 15:22

What the hell? Do you know anything about Gnosticism? It far, far, far predates Wiccans, and has always been considered a Judeo-Christian sect - from the time of Valentinius, even! Roman times! Some scholars now believe it actually has more in common with Zoroastrianism, but regardless, no one's changing anything about Gnosticism. The library at Nag Hammadi is as old or older than the Dead Sea Scrolls, fer Ialdabaoth's sake!

I thank you you for the defense on the Gnostic's as most people do not listen to the accused they only listen to the accusers, but hold on a minute:

1) Its been Considered a Judeo-Christian Sect: There is the Pagan sect of Gnosticism called Hermeticism. Fortunetly its not, first and fore most: Gnosticism is a distinct, pre-Christian religion. Its roots are in Alexandria in Egypt, about 2200 years ago, where a "café-society" of Greek-speaking and -educated Jews were syncretizing the myths of the ancient world with Judaism and classical Greek philosophy.

These communities and their ideas greatly influenced Christianity as it later emerged. As Christianity struggled in its first four centuries to distinguish itself from the pagan world, it slowly began to reject some of these Gnostic influences. But most of the people who still favoured these ideas considered themselves devout Christians, not heretics.

Let us not forget that the most common topic in the New Testament – more common than the power of love or redemption or the sacrfice of the cross or even the divinity of Jesus – is that "other Christians are getting it wrong". Paul condemns James as a heretic. Jesus refers to Peter as "Satan".

2) Zoroastrianism is Dualistic however, thats were the similarities end. Zoroastrianism believes there are two gods of equal power one of evil the other of good. The more ascetic side to Gnosticism ran into conflict with the Zoroastrian Priests, called The Manichean's. Because, Mani the Prophet suggested that Evil was lower and not equal to Good and that the world we are in is a prison designed by the evil side. The Prison concept is of course a Gnostic ideology. Zoroastrianism is more like a dual, black and white type of religion while Gnostics are monistic believing that all came from one force and not two equally pre-existing forces.

3) Nag Hammadi was written by Christian Gnostics, and Pagan Gnostics. These are written most likely during the 1st and 2nd Century CE. More conservative scholars who seek to discredit the Gnostics say it was during the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE. Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essene Jews who existed before Christianity (whom which Jesus could have been speculated to be from this group.) These Jews rejected the dogma and doctrine of Orthodox Judaism and the Temple Priests. Now heres something to Note: [i]None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century. Mark was not written by Mark, nor Luke written by Luke. John was written in two distinct phases, the first of which showed significant Gnostic elements, and the latter a retraction and condemnation of those elements. These were based on first century oral traditions which varied greatly from region to region, but did not exist in written form until at least 100 years after the events they describe. Paul is the only first century Christian writer we have, and much of his writings were edited centuries later into the form we have today.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is contemporary with the later half of John, and there is some evidence to support that John's later editors were familiar with Thomas.

To the Pawns of The Demiurge: If the Gnostics were Heretics, and if the orthodox savior figure Christ said "Love Thy Enemy" why were the Gnostics, first, accosted, than, persecuted, finally, executed? If the Gnostic's were such liars why would you kill them, you don't kill a liar you just don't listen to a liar (The Boy Who Cried Wolf!) and they will be destroyed by themselves. But the Gnostics did not fall rather they were killed and persecuted. Instead, the powers that be tried to silence them forever. Whether it be the Cathars, The Valentinians or any Gnostic Sect.

All these italics except the last italic group are sourced here: http://egina.blogspot.com/2005/04/10-steps-toward-gnostic-communion-call.html
Even if you dont believe or even if you dont agree with what it said, Please educated yourself on what the Gnostics meant and not what the Gnostics were speculated and accused of saying. Gnostic text are highly metaphorical and allegorical, what a fundamentalist christian will get from it is not what is intended and since all the early church fathers read (exception Origen) the Bible more on literalistic lines so when they read gnostic text they would automatically say HERESY!

You know whats funny, I often asked myself, what if the supposed "heretics" were supposed to be the truth and the people dictating the truth are the real heretics? You know if you take the root word heresy it means "different school of thought" and you know what... It would be a first time in history that thinking differently was considered a crime (E.g. Socrates). Why is there such a effort to cover up and discredit what the gnostics were trying to say? well, thats for us to know and us to find out.

Topic Starter: I apologize this thread went on a wild tangent, considering we are talking about mainstream Christianity.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-17, 20:47

The definition of what a parasite is, does not require one to diminish or kill it's host. Even so, a rival belief structure WILL diminish the numbers of partacipants in the orginal belief structure, IF you still feel the need to qualify a parasite by your own terms.

Parasite: Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Parasitic: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a parasite.
http://www.answers.com/topic/parasite?cat=health

To say that gnosticism is parasitic, is correct. The gnostic belief structure is grown, fed and sheltered from it's host belief and contributes nothing to the survival of its host.

Gnosticism is a distinct, pre-Christian religion. Its roots are in Alexandria in Egypt, about 2200 years ago, where a "café-society" of Greek-speaking and -educated Jews were syncretizing the myths of the ancient world with Judaism and classical Greek philosophy.

The bolded term indicates the point of which parasitic behavior occurs. Syncretize is defined and sourced below. HOW IS THIS NOT PARASITIC? Did you even look up syncretize when you copied and pasted?

If this is the first form of Gnosticism, then I present the first parasitic behavior of it. Leeching, of course, from the myths of the ancient world and classical Greek philosophy. NOW then, after Christ, gnosticism has a new host meme to attach itself to, creating either a new sect of gnosticism or adding the "new" ideas with the old.

syn·cre·tize (sngkr-tz, sn-)
v. syn·cre·tized, syn·cre·tiz·ing, syn·cre·tiz·es
v.tr.
To reconcile and unite (differing religious beliefs, for example), especially with partial success or a heterogeneous result.
v.intr.
To combine differing elements or beliefs, especially with partial success or a heterogeneous result.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syncretizing

Gnosticism (Greek: γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Gnosticism does not exist by itself. It is not described by itself without mentioning other pre-existing beliefs. It cannot survive by itself. This further indicates that it is a parasitic meme.

Just accept it and move on.

Twisted_Ferret

2008-03-17, 21:34

2) Zoroastrianism is Dualistic however, thats were the similarities end. Zoroastrianism believes there are two gods of equal power one of evil the other of good. The more ascetic side to Gnosticism ran into conflict with the Zoroastrian Priests, called The Manichean's. Because, Mani the Prophet suggested that Evil was lower and not equal to Good and that the world we are in is a prison designed by the evil side. The Prison concept is of course a Gnostic ideology. Zoroastrianism is more like a dual, black and white type of religion while Gnostics are monistic believing that all came from one force and not two equally pre-existing forces.
This is true, but though the highest god is singular, many of the Gnostic texts I have read have mentioned three primordial forces: the dark, the light, and an intermediate force that moves between them, usually referred to as "the Word." Jean Doresse speculates that the idea of the dark/light dualism may have come from Zoroastrianism, but have been modified by Christian influence to include the idea of a third, intermediate principle; see The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics for a quick synopsis of this idea. I'm not saying he's correct, but he is pretty knowledgeable. He does slightly predate us, though, so maybe in the past few years a new view has taken hold.

3) Nag Hammadi was written by Christian Gnostics, and Pagan Gnostics. These are written most likely during the 1st and 2nd Century CE. More conservative scholars who seek to discredit the Gnostics say it was during the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE. Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essene Jews who existed before Christianity (whom which Jesus could have been speculated to be from this group.) These Jews rejected the dogma and doctrine of Orthodox Judaism and the Temple Priests. Now heres something to Note: [i]None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century. Mark was not written by Mark, nor Luke written by Luke. John was written in two distinct phases, the first of which showed significant Gnostic elements, and the latter a retraction and condemnation of those elements. These were based on first century oral traditions which varied greatly from region to region, but did not exist in written form until at least 100 years after the events they describe. Paul is the only first century Christian writer we have, and much of his writings were edited centuries later into the form we have today.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is contemporary with the later half of John, and there is some evidence to support that John's later editors were familiar with Thomas.
Thanks for the more accurate chronology. I think it shows my point pretty well: Gnosticism is not new, nor is it being changed around to gain popularity. :)

To the Pawns of The Demiurge: If the Gnostics were Heretics, and if the orthodox savior figure Christ said "Love Thy Enemy" why were the Gnostics, first, accosted, than, persecuted, finally, executed? If the Gnostic's were such liars why would you kill them, you don't kill a liar you just don't listen to a liar (The Boy Who Cried Wolf!) and they will be destroyed by themselves. But the Gnostics did not fall rather they were killed and persecuted. Instead, the powers that be tried to silence them forever. Whether it be the Cathars, The Valentinians or any Gnostic Sect.

All these italics except the last italic group are sourced here: http://egina.blogspot.com/2005/04/10-steps-toward-gnostic-communion-call.html
Even if you dont believe or even if you dont agree with what it said, Please educated yourself on what the Gnostics meant and not what the Gnostics were speculated and accused of saying. Gnostic text are highly metaphorical and allegorical, what a fundamentalist christian will get from it is not what is intended and since all the early church fathers read (exception Origen) the Bible more on literalistic lines so when they read gnostic text they would automatically say HERESY!
I'm not accusing the Gnostics of saying anything, nor do I read such accusations (except when posting on Totse, I guess!). I have several texts about the Gnostics, including English translations of many Gnostic books. I don't believe it, but I find it incredibly fascinating. :)

You know whats funny, I often asked myself, what if the supposed "heretics" were supposed to be the truth and the people dictating the truth are the real heretics? You know if you take the root word heresy it means "different school of thought" and you know what... It would be a first time in history that thinking differently was considered a crime (E.g. Socrates). Why is there such a effort to cover up and discredit what the gnostics were trying to say? well, thats for us to know and us to find out.

Could be. :eek: The victors determine what is false and heretical, after all...

godfather89

2008-03-17, 23:26

This is true, but though the highest god is singular, many of the Gnostic texts I have read have mentioned three primordial forces: the dark, the light, and an intermediate force that moves between them, usually referred to as "the Word." Jean Doresse speculates that the idea of the dark/light dualism may have come from Zoroastrianism, but have been modified by Christian influence to include the idea of a third, intermediate principle; see The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics for a quick synopsis of this idea. I'm not saying he's correct, but he is pretty knowledgeable. He does slightly predate us, though, so maybe in the past few years a new view has taken hold.

True, but the darkness had nothing, until the demiurge which came from the source came to be. The light and darkness did exist but the darkness was nothing, it was oblivion, with nothing there. The light was the fullness with everything there. This third intermediate principle being the word.... The only thing I can think of is the part where christ comes down to save sophia and us in the process being that we have the light in us as well. So perhaps this Third Aspect is The Christos / Logos connection you were saying.

Thanks for the more accurate chronology. I think it shows my point pretty well: Gnosticism is not new, nor is it being changed around to gain popularity. :)

Right, its not new its ancient, but like all modern, or current ideas it needs a platform from previous ideas on which to develop from. This does not mean that the new view should be discredited just that it needs some getting used to.

I'm not accusing the Gnostics of saying anything, nor do I read such accusations (except when posting on Totse, I guess!). I have several texts about the Gnostics, including English translations of many Gnostic books. I don't believe it, but I find it incredibly fascinating. :)

I know your not, Im just saying that the early church fathers did, although severely misinformed these attacks where polemics and misrepresentations of the gnostic worldview. Today fundamentalist christians and traditionalist scholars, who believe there doing Christ a favor by trying to discredit the Gnostics are your modern versions or "The Ghosts of the Ancient Heresiologist" just last night I had watched someone try to say that the gnostics were anti-feminine, however, I swiftly jumped in and said that is not the case.

You don't need to believe; you just need to know <--- Gnostic Pun ;)

Could be. :eek: The victors determine what is false and heretical, after all...

Indeed, those who are victorious are the one's who rewrite the history books making the the opponents look bad or foolish. They pride themselves on there victory sadly, pride before the fall I feel that the those who boasted and continue to boast against the Oppressed will fall.

The definition of what a parasite is, does not require one to diminish or kill it's host. Even so, a rival belief structure WILL diminish the numbers of partacipants in the orginal belief structure, IF you still feel the need to qualify a parasite by your own terms.

Gnosticism (Greek: γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Gnosticism does not exist by itself. It is not described by itself without mentioning other pre-existing beliefs. It cannot survive by itself. This further indicates that it is a parasitic meme.

Just accept it and move on.

Tell you what I will compromise, since you showed me my own definition meant to say "combining different belief structures." I will admit than being I have no other way to prove it is a religion of mixed ideas and beliefs. However, when I envision a parasite I see it as something draining the life away from the source ideas. Instead, I will compare Gnosticism to a religion that if put into an animal form is more like a barnacle on the underside of a whale. So Gnosticism is a lot like a Whale Barnacle:

Whale barnacles are barnacles belonging to the family Coronulidae. Whale barnacles attach themselves to the bodies of baleen whales during the barnacle's free-swimming larval stage. Though often described as parasites, the relationship is an example of obligate commensalism, as the barnacles neither harm, nor benefit, their host.

I think thats why there was a disagreement between us In my mind when I think of a Parasite; Parasite harms the host to get what it wants from it. The ecological agreement of Commensalism is what Gnosticism is more like; being it does not aim to harm nor benefit its source idea.

So thats my compromise: Gnosticism is like Commensalism, nonetheless it is a spiritual path that holds just as much weight as any other spiritual path, whether people believe in it or not.

BrokeProphet

2008-03-18, 00:12

I admit the word parasite has strong negative connotations, and that ultimately is probably why I used it.

I just wanted to point out the gnostic meme requires another religion meme.

godfather89

2008-03-18, 02:20

well nonetheless as long as we can come about in agreement, two views agreeing to call it one thing, that will workout. I get a bit defensive when someone tries to negate my view in negative ways, as anyone would I think the moral here is that Everyone has a valid view on something. Its understandable, after all like I said in other reply: Current ideas are influenced by previous idea's. To bad this topic went largely to our discussion and not to what it's original purposes was founded by: Christian Fundamentalism for me this thread was to just try and at least discredit using fundamentalism, Fanaticism and Radicalism when it comes to religious text interpretation.

Personally, (if we can get back on track) if the religious adherents want to keep there religious tradition alive than they need to do things that making it living. One big thing that I know that I can do while living is think. So why not think deeply about what is being said in the religious texts? Contemplation (for you spiritual truth seekers) is a great way to come to know what the author's are trying to say. The best part is that there can be more than one interpretation and can co-exist in your life, so as long as you take it to meaning in YOUR LIFE!