That's correct Pangloss, religion is deadly stuff, lots of boneyards and charnal houses, burning witches, frightenend children all down through the ages that had to endure the wrath of gods little helpers.
Who Is Jesus?
- Thread starter herald
- Start date
And of course if he really wants to study the early church he should read all the available versions of Mathew not just the doctored vatican version.
The law was set to condemn period.
Prior to Christ, the law stood supreme, though it did, it saved not one soul.
Why? Because it shows that humanity without God is hopeless.
Now, to remedy that, for mankind, God sends His Son to be the remedy that rectifies the law to fulfillment for us all.
Therefore, we are no longer under the law ,as unto condemnation and death, but grace, as unto forgiveness and unto life.
If we are not able to see the whole picture, then we are stuck to see the details, interpret the details as dogma, and miss all together the picture in whole.
I'm telling you friend and foe, believer and unbeliever, faithful and unfaithful, God is greater than any of us can imagine.
He knew full well what He created, and how His creation thinks, and also knew that of itself, it could do absolutely nothing to further it's soul's life past this one.
He orchestrated it altogether beautifully, without a flaw, giving us the freedom to experience our own ability to be like a god, in that we know the difference between good and evil, and freedom to choose and live it out as we please.
He also incorporated into it checks and balances, to where if we chose the evil route, there'd be consequences, but if the good route, there'd be rewards.
So, it doesn't matter whether we be believers or unbelievers, the same rules apply.
For as you all very well know, that even so called Christians murdered in the name of God, likewise, the same for unbelievers who also murder in unbelief.
So tell me, what is the difference?
Now, if the believer and the unbeliever are able to honor, respect each others space, beliefs and help each other in compassion, that, my friends is the true religion.
The true religion is to love thy neighbor without respect to who or what they are.
But there is also justice, that demands good behavior, and for us to govern ourselves to wards that end.
A good atheist and a good Christian can live side by side with this religion, called love thy neighbor, and yet be just in dealing with misbehavior.
Parents love their children, but does not mean they can run amok, for justice says, that they must be corrected.
Let us not confuse love and justice as one without the other. To be just, one must hold to principles accepted by the people for the common good.
I, a believer, hold no ill will to any unbeliever, but rather a compassion greater than I would to a believer.
For a believer is held to a higher standard because of it's knowledge of God, and therefore at greater risk of loss of reward than to the unbeliever.
It behooves us believers, to then exercises compassion greater than the offense done us, so that God may all in all receive the glory as a true and loving God.
I have no enemy, unless I make them one.
Peace>>>AJ
Prior to Christ, the law stood supreme, though it did, it saved not one soul.
Why? Because it shows that humanity without God is hopeless.
Now, to remedy that, for mankind, God sends His Son to be the remedy that rectifies the law to fulfillment for us all.
Therefore, we are no longer under the law ,as unto condemnation and death, but grace, as unto forgiveness and unto life.
If we are not able to see the whole picture, then we are stuck to see the details, interpret the details as dogma, and miss all together the picture in whole.
I'm telling you friend and foe, believer and unbeliever, faithful and unfaithful, God is greater than any of us can imagine.
He knew full well what He created, and how His creation thinks, and also knew that of itself, it could do absolutely nothing to further it's soul's life past this one.
He orchestrated it altogether beautifully, without a flaw, giving us the freedom to experience our own ability to be like a god, in that we know the difference between good and evil, and freedom to choose and live it out as we please.
He also incorporated into it checks and balances, to where if we chose the evil route, there'd be consequences, but if the good route, there'd be rewards.
So, it doesn't matter whether we be believers or unbelievers, the same rules apply.
For as you all very well know, that even so called Christians murdered in the name of God, likewise, the same for unbelievers who also murder in unbelief.
So tell me, what is the difference?
Now, if the believer and the unbeliever are able to honor, respect each others space, beliefs and help each other in compassion, that, my friends is the true religion.
The true religion is to love thy neighbor without respect to who or what they are.
But there is also justice, that demands good behavior, and for us to govern ourselves to wards that end.
A good atheist and a good Christian can live side by side with this religion, called love thy neighbor, and yet be just in dealing with misbehavior.
Parents love their children, but does not mean they can run amok, for justice says, that they must be corrected.
Let us not confuse love and justice as one without the other. To be just, one must hold to principles accepted by the people for the common good.
I, a believer, hold no ill will to any unbeliever, but rather a compassion greater than I would to a believer.
For a believer is held to a higher standard because of it's knowledge of God, and therefore at greater risk of loss of reward than to the unbeliever.
It behooves us believers, to then exercises compassion greater than the offense done us, so that God may all in all receive the glory as a true and loving God.
I have no enemy, unless I make them one.
Peace>>>AJ
I find these kinds of statements fascinating!
I really have to ask:
Do you realize that civilization and its cornerstones (law, schools, contract, mathematics, writing, weights and measures, music notation, agriculture, etc..) started in a pagan society way before anyone heard of Jesus?
Do you know that the story of Jesus is almost identical with the story of Horus? That there is no archaeological or historical evidence that there even was a Jesus (or a Horus for that matter)? If the Bible were a term paper the author would flunk as a plagiarist?
Do you know that Jesus brought absolutely nothing new to the world with his ministry? Everything he taught was being taught in pagan temples? How do you explain that? Doesn't it seem strange that mankind had already figured everything he had to say out on their own? Even that there was only one true God was taught by paganism; the gods were just different names and aspects of that entity, a gift from him so people could know Him better. Isn't that odd?
You do realize that while you claim the world needed Christianity that same religion is responsible for more death, mayhem and slavery then any other before it? That if that had been removed from the world the world would probably have been a much better place? How do you reconcile this in the face of evidence?
I really am just wondering. It is so strange to me that people will say "I believe" but never really look at what it is they believe? I don't see how you really can believe if you haven't taken a good long hard historical look?
You are right to a certain extent, which is temporal. But, ultimately, you will find that the exercises of religion though misguided, was good intentioned.
You see, pangloss that when human nature suborgates the flesh over the spirit, the results are selfishness, greed and personal gain.
Attach religion to that and you have a disaster, a monster.
That monster is what Jesus came to defeat, that is why He came in the flesh, for none other than God Himself had the power to overcome all that the human flesh desired, or rather the lusts of the flesh.
He did that by becoming that monster and nailing it to the cross, freeing us up from it.
The problem is, that not to many know it, accept it, and or reject it.
But each to their own pearl.
Compassion then is to the ones who can not understand it, believe it or accept it.
For if they did, they wouldn't crucify Jesus afresh every day.
So, I'd say, on the side of God, I win the argument! Not in a boastful way, but in an unconditional way, for what evil can anybody say against someone who is exercising compassion in the face of adversity to them who are administering it?
To say that exercising compassion is evil, or rendering evil for compassion, then their is definitely a flaw in that kind of action or thought, regardless of whether it comes from a religious or nonreligious source.
Love conquers all! Jesus, said not a word to those who were beating Him, and crucifying Him, because if He did, love would have been of none effect.
He rendered love for evil at the cost of His life, as He was willing that no stone be left unturned in the taking away the condition which placed mankind on death row.
That you an all can be grateful for, even if you chose not to believe it. He did it for you and I, even though we accept it or not, for it is a free gift from God to us and need not be earned, but exploited to its fullest extent should we chose.
Peace>>>AJ
To where may I ask?
Sanctus to stands on his convictions as many of us done, based on our beliefs. For who can say that one is more right than the other?
Let the exercise of love dictate who is right. For love knows no difference, sees no difference but is there for all to exercise.
What have I that you all don't have? You all have compassion, you all hurt when someone else is hurting, and you all would not hesitate to help some one in distress without regard to belief, would you?
Ah! So we are made of the same stuff, just different way of expressing it.
Do I have to have a religion to do so? Absolutely not!
If it is not from the heart, no religion can boast.
Peace>>>AJ
Absolutely! Are you aware of the tree of life being held from Adam and Eve for a later time and place?
You see, the tree of knowledge was first given to us to gain knowledge from it upon which recognition, gave us choices like as gods.
In other words, you become the king of your own little empire, your life, and therefore, you and I are condemned by it.
There was also another tree, that which was held from Adam and Eve to be introduced at a later time, an appointed time, to take away the effect of the first, that which condemned us.
Yes, I am fully aware of it, but if you understood the scope of the bible as a whole, you would see the beginning of God’s work in relation to mankind, and how He reveals Himself to us, and then goes to show His great love for us by first giving us the ability to be like Him, (Choice) and then exempting us from the consequences.
I wouldn’t say that Jesus didn’t bring anything new, because He did. You will find after studying the bible the purpose for His coming, the necessity for His coming, and the final results form His coming, that affect every soul that ever lived.
Yes, I understand very well that in the name of God, atrocities were committed and still are to this very day.
But you see, humanity is handicapped by the lusts of the flesh, and nothing can overcome it but the spirit that is in each soul.
Change the spirit of mankind to that of a God kind, then you will see a change in humanity, the likes you’ve never witnesses before.
I believe, Scott by faith and not by histories portrayal of who or what God is, but faith in who God says He is.
Mankind is at liberty to portray God anyway it chooses, but unless it is demonstrated in love, then God exists not.
I don’t rely on mankind’s doctrines for my faith in God, because mankind fails but God doesn’t.
God said, He gave me life, I accept it from the heart, and will endeavor to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, faithful to the death.
You see, I have a pretty good handle on the workings of God based on the whole of the bible, and I can safely, assuredly tell you, that there is not one mean bone in God’s body towards His creation and all His creatures.
If God is made out to be something other than pure love for us, then that is mankind’s problem.
Peace>>>AJ
Once again, look is missing the point, deliberately misreading posts, etc, etc.
Sorry, sports fans - I'm done and done.
Pangloss
Sorry, sports fans - I'm done and done.
Pangloss
Just thought 'Sanctus' would be 'into' this thread, but maybe he's in Hawaii soaking up the rays.
I've been talking to religionists on other forums for quite some time now and also I was one once; I have also been talking to people of different political bents, and made a few observations:
I don't think the religionists (which is very similar to the conservative/Republican mindset) are purposefully being evasive. Nor do I think they misrepresent or deceive, here I mean the religionists only, but both still have similar relevant characteristics.
Our minds work in lineal ways where space time and causation are important factors to imagination and therefore understanding. It isn't possible to understand what you can't imagine except as math equations or absurd physics formulas. The mind needs to (must) keep things separate in time, place and seeks causation. We are also pattern seeking creatures. This is how our minds collect and sort information to create a model of reality we can deal with. Oddly our language isn't so limited and we can pluck out abstractions from our thoughts and string them together out of order to create very abstract concepts; they are better suited to language than a reality we can call functional. Our minds do not create a very convincing reality in the face of evidence but they do create uniform reality most people can comprehend. By this I mean we see things in a narrow range of colour, tend to orient objects and the world around us in a very egocentric way, we hear limited sounds, we have poor smell etc.. all these are often combined in other species which creates a very different world for them from our human world. For example a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound, likewise a bird can see magnetic fields (how different would our science be if we could see these fields?) - try showing load stones to a bird its fun.
So it has been my observation that the frame work of perception differs between the religionists and the non-religionists but both use similar abstractions. I think this is important to understanding. I have read Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens (others too) where they tend to assume a superior stance against the religionists and even go so far as to call themselves "brights," because they assume theirs is an intellectually superior vision - they assume they are more intelligent. I think this premise is false. I have met remarkably intelligent religionists that if anyone were to call them unintelligent or even less intelligent would only pass a not so very nice verdict on the observer. They simply are not stupid but they do see things differently, that is, they have different abstractions. Now abstract thought is very much like the bat who sees sound and light as similar things; the bat could say we are stupid because we need a flashlight. We could say the bat doesn't see reality because it is different than our own.
So what I am saying is that to the religionists who places their own experiences and "belief" above evidence are doing so because they perceive a causation of their experience that a non-religionists doesn't. This is also why we end up with sky gods because such a model makes sense to a human brain in terms of place, causation and time. So we end up with a god that we can conceive but is wholly unrealistic in terms of something that really could "create" a universe, but we do get something that is easy to imagine. That being said, the scientist does the same thing with very similar effects. Though they would claim their ideas are grounded in evidence a realistic look at science will reveal that this isn't the case. They very much rely on the "minds of giants" from which to leap off of and make their conclusions (faith in the scientific method). As a result science has become every bit the dogmatic (using the work of previous "great" scientists without question) pseudo science (not actually concerned with reality as much as method) full of mistakes (cooking experiments to get results desired) and superstition (trust in laws that predict not explain) that we would expect given the nature of our minds. I have brought up these observations to scientists and other "skeptics" and received very hostile responses exactly the same as I do when I bring up problems with the religionists world view. They deny what is pure evidence because I have hit a limitation of their abstract thought and challenged their dogma, but also, and more importantly, I have challenged what they hold as evidence. I would recommend a book: The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin because I have no interest in arguing this point. If this contention raises the hackles of any reader of this post I would suggest that now they know how a religionists feels when their own "evidence" is challenged.
As a religionist I observed the hand of god in everything. My observations were drawn from my personal experience and the experience of others. I drew out abstractions and assembled a world that made sense based on these observations. Now that I am not a religionist I do the same thing only I use different evidence. In fact I have married the two together to some extent. I am lucky that I could escape the prison of religiosity (odds: 1 in 12) but I didn't feel it would do to replace it with another dogma.
So what separates the religionist and the skeptic is only the dogma, observations and what they hold faith in. Both are equally absurd but not in the context of how our minds operate. What I have come to question is which group is capable of the most abstract thought. Physics and indeed any science requires a lot of abstraction but so too does the belief in a god bound by time, place and causation. I honestly believe there isn't much difference.
I tested this hypothesis out on the editor of Skeptic magazine. I sent them an email explaining that I suspected they weren't all that skeptical because they seemed to hold too strongly to a belief in evolution. I received a hostile email back of the sort I would expect had I sent a similar email to a clergyman questioning his belief in god.
So my conclusion has been that the difference between a skeptic and religionist is in what evidence they consider, the abstract concepts they conclude, and the arguments between the two groups is really just an argument of semantics, dogma and belief. There really is no empirical evidence that either side is right or wrong in terms of whether there is a God or not. It just boils down to the kinds of abstractions people conclude for themselves.
Sorry for the long post.