DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on September 24, 2015, 10:09:19 PM
-
With Ben Carson gaining on Donald Trump at the top of the polls in the Republican presidential race, the more, shall we say, interesting public comments he's made in his past are seeping out. It's proving that there are multiple kinds of intelligence, and being by all accounts a brilliant neurosurgeon doesn't necessarily reflect a solid intellectual grasp on reality.
For example, the big bang theory is a "fairy tale" spread by "high-faluting scientists," and evil lurks behind the theory of evolution.
"So now you're gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say, "Well we can explain this, based on probability theory because if there's enough big explosions, over a long period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion," continued Carson. "So I say what you're telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually after one of those hurricanes there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly." […]
Later, Carson said he personally believed Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil. [...]
"Amazingly, there are a significant number of scientists who do not believe it but they're afraid to say anything," Carson added, saying he would be writing a book, "The Organ of Species," that shows how the organs of the body refute evolution.
As a matter of fact, Carson has written books, though apparently not this one. For a fun read, check out that link, and how pregnant women are a lot like Michael Vick with his dogs. What a charmer.
Carson's deeper thoughts on how the world works, on morality, on existence do kind of answer one burning question about Carson—how in the hell he thinks he should be president. He's so steeped in magical, black and white thinking, so sure of his interpretation of the "Word of God" that he's probably never questioned his own qualifications.
From the Daily Kos.
-
From KOS?
Can't be exaggerated.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/muslim-boys-message-ben-carson-1st-muslim-president/story?id=34011136
Too late kid.
-
Carson actually said this, and it can be easily verified.
Charles Darwin was influenced by Satan.
This strikes me as the sort of statement a doofus might make.
-
Kind of along the lines of 57 states in America, you mean?
-
How does that make Carson smarter to say that?
Everyone knows that Obama was talking about attending a total of 57 primaries and caucuses combined, as some states had both,
A presidential candidate that thinks that Charles Darwin made up Evolution on orders from SATAN. now there is a a dumb remark.
-
Everyone knows that Obama was talking about attending a total of 57 primaries and caucuses combined, as some states had both,
That isn't what he said tho is it?
A presidential candidate that thinks that Charles Darwin made up Evolution on orders from SATAN. now there is a a dumb remark.
That isn't what he said tho is it?
-
D'oh. .... you're not saying the professor is concocting a false claim now, are you?
-
No.
I see a difference between concocting and accepting.
-
Ahhh.....as he's simply the willing messenger of a concocted claim. Gotcha, thanks 8)
-
The POINT is that Carson claims to believe that Charles Darwin was bewitched by Satan into inventing a false Theory of Evolution.
Witchcraft. Do we want to be ;led some buffoon that believes in devils and demons?
-
Per your parameters, ANY Christian, which includes Obama, is believing in devils & demons. Not a problem, when you consider how many people are bewitched by Satan. I'd definitely prefer someone bewitched by Christ, so long as they function like any other similar Christian President. Carson has given us no indication, what-so-ever, that he'd try to rule as a theocracy. Quite the opposite in fact
-
The POINT is that Carson claims to believe that Charles Darwin was bewitched by Satan into inventing a false Theory of Evolution.
Witchcraft. Do we want to be ;led some buffoon that believes in devils and demons?
This defines a buffoon?
If most of us are so defined shouldn't we want representation in government?
-
Carson has a tendency to talk himself into a corner.
If Christ can bewitch people, then Christ must be a witch as well.
Evolution is a logical explanation for how it is we all came to be here.
The tale involving the entire human race being damned for all eternity for taking bad culinary advice from a talking snake is a lot less convincing.
-
Your lack of faith is duly noted. ..... not to mention that we've had a plethora of Christian and Catholic presidents in the past, and currently, without our country falling into a theocracy
-
Continue to believe that you have been conceived in sin because of an episode involving a talking reptile.
Every human being is born ignorant, with only two talents: they can yell and they can suck.
These are necessary for survival at first, but far less so for adults.
Despite this, many are those who continue to be best only at yelling and sucking.
They are knows as "Conservatives" AND "Fundamentalists".
A doctor who believes in people being indoctrinated by Satan is a strange phenomena.
One would thing that such a person might forgo medical school and take up exorcism.
I have often wondered how many believers tried to cure insanity by transporting demons into hogs as Jesus was said to have done before they gave up.
-
How different is a requirement that a candidate for president be a Christian , as a requirement that he not be a Christian?
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-darwins-evolution-theory-was-encouraged-adversary-satan
Ben Carson is not an ignorant guy, not a braggart , not unperceptive.
He is a Brain Surgeon, in the top ranks of that discipline.
What we have here is a demonstration that a belief in God and a disbelief in evolution does not prevent success in a scientific career.
Belief in God didn't even handicap Charles Darwin himself.
-
I did not say that a person cannot be a believer and a scientist.
That was not what I was referring to in the case of Carson.
I was referring to Carson's comment that Carson thought that Darwin was influenced by Satan to develop his conclusions regarding evolution.
Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, a church that started out as an end-of-the-world cult.
A preacher named William Miller (no, not Barry Goldwater's running mate) proclaimed that Jesus was returning on October 22, 1844, which, as you you probably know, did not happen. This was called "The Great Disappointment", as many believers had given away all their belongings.
Adventists are vegetarians, teetotalers, and believe that the universe was created in six literal days. They claim adherence to the Bible alone, and are very adamant that the Sabbath begins as the Jews claim, on Friday at sundown and lasts until sundown on Saturday. They are generally more fearful of Satan than most other Christians. Satan and his helpers, the demons, are not all that popular in modern times. Certainly much less mentioned than angels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church
The Adventists sprang up as a cult about 14 years after the Mormons got started, during the period known as the Second Great Awakening.
Carson seems to be a rather typical Adventist.
-
And despite all that spin, his actions demonstrate nothing of the sort of "extremism" he supposedly personifies. In fact, its the polar opposite, with a current thesis of how important the Constitution trumps religion, as it relates to political leaders....especially, the President
-
I would prefer a president that thinks rationally and pragmatically, rather than one that imagines Satan is tempting this or that other politician. People who think they hear God or think they detect satanic influences tend to be fanatics.
Brain surgery is certainly a useful skill, but it is more a form of complicated organic mechanics than a philosophical pursuit.I don't see it as an advantage to a national leader.
Bashir Al Assad is an eye doctor.The world was much better off when he was working on eyes.
-
I know exactly what you would "prefer". Thank God there are more rational Americans who can vote than there are of you
-
When most people vote, people who agree with me always win.
When turnout is low, the Crypto-Fascists like you win.
-
When most people vote, people who agree with me always win.
Except of course when you don't win
-
Whether I win or not, it is pretty clear that the tale with the talking reptile is bullshit.
-
As noted prior, your lack of faith & opinion on the matter is duly noted......and discarded
-
Go have a pleasant conversation with a boa constrictor or perhaps a blue racer.
-
If a boa decides to start a conversation with me, I'll gladly respond. Until then, my walk & talk with my God, is just fine, thank you very much
-
When most people vote, people who agree with me always win.
When turnout is low, the Crypto-Fascists like you win.
So why is low turnout a bad thing?
It only subtracts the lazy, the ignorant and, the uncaring.
-
Because the country was most rural people, we have elections on Tuesdays. Many people have to work on Tuesdays and have long commutes and cannot vote as a result.
Fewer the number of people that vote, the less a democracy we have.
-
Fewer the number of people that vote, the less a democracy we have.
I don't see it this way.
The right to vote needs to be universal or as nearly so as can be done.
The decision to not vote should be respected.
When the issue is one I know little about , I also fail to vote.
When the issues are those I care about and have had a chance to study , it is much more important that I vote , than that someone who will flip a coin might vote.
-
I like the Australian way: you vote, or you pay a fine.
Australia is pretty well run.
-
When the issues are those I care about and have had a chance to study , it is much more important that I vote , than that someone who will flip a coin might vote.
BINGO
-
You are so incredibly ill-informed about the history 0of this country that someone flipping a coin would have a 50-50 chance making a wiser choice than you.
-
It figures some hard core leftist would prefer someone flipping a coin to vote than someone who's educated themselves on the issues & candidates, but perhaps doesn't share their ieological agenda
News Flash.....especially as it relates to the history of this country. It was founded on freedom. Freedom to make good choices & bad choices. Freedom to succeed or screw-up. Freedom to vote....or NOT vote. Voting is that sacred, as is the freedom that founded this country. They go hand in hand. Now, while its transparent why the left would want the most ignorant, undereducated folks to vote in mass, with the presumption they'd vote for more Government to aide them in their ignorant uneducated ways, Plane was right on target that the biggest enemy to the left, in a democracy, being a well informed voter. As such, they need to be overwhelmed by sheer #'s, which is why voter ID laws are demonized, mass bussing of union and homeless is arranged for, and even dead people voting is ok, so long as its not discovered until after the election
-
It was founded on FREEDOM? REALLY?
How about all those slaves? Were they free?
No one got the vote in Virginia in 1800 except men who owned property.
Here is how it really was, Sonny-Boy:
Declaration of Independence
The signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 brought new political freedoms to America. The country needed a leader and a democratic system for electing officials. The forefathers agreed that voting rights should be extended to all citizens, defined as property owners who were at least 21 years of age. During the late 1700s and early 1800s, the majority of property owners were Protestant white males. As a result, only the wealthy had a voice in political decisions and women and minorities were excluded. The first Presidential election was held in 1789, when only 6 percent of the population had voting rights. In 1812, six Western states were the first to give non-property owning white men the right to vote.
U.S. Constitution
Ratification of the U.S. Constitution clearly defined the balance of power in government, making it difficult for a single leader or an individual branch of government to rule the country. The forefathers chose to put voting rights in the hands of states, so there were no national or federal laws to regulate voting. Most states followed previous voting precedents and gave voting rights to white male landowners only. Even though the Bill of Rights enumerated civil liberties, it didn’t grant women or African Americans the right to vote.
African-American Men
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1870, granted African-American men the right to vote. The Amendment states that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” However, some Southern states imposed poll taxes and literacy tests that made it nearly impossible for black men to qualify for voting privileges. Black women, regardless of their ability to pass voting prerequisite tests, were not allowed to vote.
Women's Struggle for Voting Rights
During the early 1800s, most women worked at home and raised families. As a result, they didn’t have money to purchase land, separate from their husbands. Men were listed as sole property owners on real estate deeds, making them U.S. citizens and granting them voting rights in many states. It wasn’t until 1856 that the last state, North Carolina, gave voting rights to all white males, regardless of property ownership. Women weren’t given national voting privileges until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. However, California, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Michigan and New York gave women voting privileges before the Amendment was enacted.
There were two groups that fought for Independence: the New Englanders, led by predominately men of commerce, and the Southern Plantation aristocracy.
I had ancestors in both groups, in Massachusetts and Georgia. The people of Massachusetts did not want to be bound to trade with only the English, as often others, such as the French and the Dutch, offered lower prices and better terms, and therefore higher profits. My Massachusetts ancestors were fishermen and farmers. The fishermen did not like the habit of the British of dragooning fishermen into the Navy, The farmers liked higher prices for their tobacco and lower prices on manufactured goods. The British prohibited the manufacture of many goods in the colonies.
The Southern Aristocracy tended to be Irish or Scots-Irish and they did not like the German King and especially they did not like Parliament, who they felt should treat them the way that landholding aristocrats were treated in London: with seats in the House of Lords and at least a few in the House of Commons. England, of course, was not a democratic place in the 1760's. The Southerners wanted to expand into territory the British had promised to the Indians.
The US as a young country had slightly more freedoms than England. But not by much.
-
It was founded on FREEDOM? REALLY?
YES
How about all those slaves? Were they free?
Not yet. Took yet another.... *close your eyes*....WAR, to help bring about that change. If left up to folks like yourself, there'd still be slavery, since war was the only avenue to have brought about that freedom to blacks
No one got the vote in Virginia in 1800 except men who owned property.
Not, the case now is it. In other words, now everyone legally able to vote has....wait for it....THE FREEDOM TO VOTE.......OR NOT
Here's how it is Grandpa, we have ridiculously more freedoms than pretty much any other country.....including England. Those freedoms were fought for, millions have sacraficed their lives for these very freedoms that we have, and not you are any of your leftist socialist crod is going to take that away from them, or us
-
I like the Australian way: you vote, or you pay a fine.
Australia is pretty well run.
I would have to pay that fine now and then.
When I don't know the issues I have a 50-50 chance of doing more harm than good.
When I can I look for information and contrary opinions , to prevent my own ignorance, but I can't pay attention to everything.
Some people have pleasant sounding names , I bet they get extra votes that way.
-
since war was the only avenue to have brought about that freedom to blacks
============================================================
Really? There was no war that brought freedom to Blacks in British colonies, Cuba or Puerto Rico. The Spanish declared that from a specific date, no one would be born a slave. Brazil had LOTS of slaves. The abolitionists had to depose the emperor to end slavery there, but there was no war.
The Spanish, declared the end of slavery in Santo Domingo, then the French declared it in Haiti. The war resulted in Napoleon's attempt to reinstate slavery, and it failed.
Every Spanish colony declared the abolition of slavery when it became free of Spanish rule.
It was the Southerners who started the Civil War and they paid a major price for it.
What freedoms do we have in the US that Canadians do not have?
It always sounds nice to say that immigrants came here for religious freedom, but that is not really true. The Pilgrims persecuted heretics, They killed people for witchcraft.
Most people came here because there were opportunities in North America that did not exist in Europe. They were driven by poverty and boredom. Liberty was way down the list.
You know next to nothing of history.
-
Some people have pleasant sounding names , I bet they get extra votes that way.
I am sure that is true.
On the Dade County ballot, we have long lists of judges that we know nothing about. Occasionally, the newspaper will say something good or about one of them but mostly it is a list of names.
Who would win this one: Donald Barad or Ellen Guralnik?
Or this one: Lucy Diamond, Fernando Pincus or Emile Duchamps?
Sorry, that's all you get.
-
since war was the only avenue to have brought about that freedom to blacks
============================================================
Really? There was no war that brought freedom to Blacks in British colonies, Cuba or Puerto Rico.
Not talking about other countries. We're talking about this one. But yea, decades, maybe even a century later, Slavery MAY have been abolished.....or maybe not. Again, this country was founded on Freedom. And if the South, and its Democrats had their way, they may have maintained their freedom to own slaves. Who knows, especially since slavery still DOES exist on parts of this globe
What we do know, is that the north, Lincoln, and the Republican party, brought an end to it. WAR brought an end to it, and new Freedoms for blacks
-
A country founded on slavery cannot be founded on freedom.
Maybe the freedom to own slaves?
You are deluded, as always.
There was one slave rebellion that ended slavery, on St Johns, in what is now the US Virgin Islands. However, the slavers returned with a huge army and killed the slaves in revolt. In all other cases, slavery was ended without any war. Only on the US was there an actual war.
Slavery exists mostly in the Muslim world: Yemen, Djibouti, Oman and Nepalese prostitutes in India. It is not official legal anywhere
The Western Sahara Liberation Front, Polisario, was very popular with European liberals in its struggle against Moroccans, until it turned out that the families of the leaders of Polisario, owned families of slaves, as they had for rations, a common practice in Mauritania. This was the former Spanish colony of Spanish Sahara, now mostly controlled by Morocco and exploited for Nitrates.
No country with slaves can be founded on Freedom. That is just preposterous.
-
A country founded on slavery cannot be founded on freedom.
No.
This makes no sense.
A country that already has satisfactory conditions , including freedom, needs not struggle does it?
Freedom existed in the Colonies , even if it was not complete or respected for all, but there was a reason to rebel and the rebellious spoke most often of freedom.
Slavery as a custom was worldwide (almost) at the time of the American Revolution, for the improvement in freedom our founders pledged their fortunes, lives and honor, loosing most of these fortunes , some of the lives and not seeing the increase in honor for a long time.
The rights of Englishmen were already better than most of the world, if the king and parliament had recognized the colonists full rights, they may have remained faithful.
But threats to loss of rights, taxation without representation and failures to respect and protect the Colonists led them to rebel, hoping for better conditions and more freedom.
-
A country founded on slavery cannot be founded on freedom.
Of course it can. Freedom per the parameters established by those in charge.
Maybe the freedom to own slaves?
We have the freedom to possess firearms, that folks like yourself would abolish in a heartbeat, if you had the power. Why wouldn't the southern democrats fight for a freedom they believed was worth their while....the freedom to posses slaves
There was one slave rebellion that ended slavery, on St Johns, in what is now the US Virgin Islands. However, the slavers returned with a huge army and killed the slaves in revolt. In all other cases, slavery was ended without any war. Only on the US was there an actual war.
And it ended slavery abruptly. Considering slavery still exists on this globe, there's nothing to guarantee that it couldn't have been prolonged for decades, if not longer, here in this country. WAR brought it to a swift end. And the US is a better place because of that
-
Five years is not "abruptly".
Abolition was not enacted until January 1, 1863, and then only in the parts of the country controlled by the Confederacy. Slavery was not abolished until December of 1865.
That is not "abruptly".
======================================================
Returning to Ben Carson:
Is someone who believes that Satan speaks to scientists to warp their thinking actually qualified to be president now?
Perhaps his voices will tell him that coal does not pollute, or that it does not matter, because Jeezus is returning next Tuesday and he will clean the atmosphere.
We recently had a high tide due to the "supermoon" and Miami Beach was awash in water. This has NEVER HAPPENED before when there was no storm.
If we have some twit in the White House that thinks 97% of all climate scientists are possessed by SATAN, that does not bode well for the country.
Of course, Carson and Fiorina are the distractions to lure the Iowa Republicans away from The Donald until JEB! decided to release the Kraken: his bazillion dollar PAC.
-
Five years is not "abruptly".
Compared to decades if not longer, of course it is.
Every Christian is going to believe that Satan tries to influence everyone, including ourselves. That includes your precious Obama, whether he makes that public or not
-
It is not required to believe in Satan or demons to be a Christian.
Most educated clerics do not believe in Satan as an actual entity.
Jesus' belief in demons is one of the lesser regarded bits in the New Testament.
You just NEVER see a preacher casting demons into swine.
There are snake handlers, and Jesus was not actually into playing with snakes himself, but casting demons into pigs is one of those Jesus things that has not worked out.
I imagine that walking on water has been tried rather a lot of times, with poor results.
-
It is not required to believe in Satan or demons to be a Christian.
Spoken like a true agnostic....Yes....it does
-
The problem is not about theocracy, it is about how people make decisions.
Note the myth of the Tower of Babel: the people of Babel built a tower soooooo effing high they almost reached Heaven. God could nopt abide that, so he destroyed their tower and magically made them all speak different languages.
I can see Leonardo da Vinci threatened by the Holy Office (Inquistion) for trying to build a flying machine. The Montgolfier Brothers, the Wright Brothers, Langley and Santos Dumont and of course NASA. Because they not only tried to go into the Heavens, but actually did so.
I note than God has not messed with Voyager or the Mars expeditions.
Seriously, someone who thinks Satan is the enemy of the country could be dangerous. The Adventists are pretty nutty people. They do live longer, being vegetarians and all.
-
The problem is not about theocracy, it is about how people make decisions.
Exactly.....and to this point in history, has at no time EVER, demonstrate Carson as using his religion to thump anyone over the head with it. Quite the contrary, where he has made it CRYSTAL clear that Constitution trumps religion in this country
So, your problem is is that Carson says what every Chrisitian, Obama included, would believe, that Satan does try to influence/coerce/cast doubt in everyone's decision making. And despite that belief, Christians can still fully function in political offices....President included, so long as they adhere to the Constitution
-
Carson has never heal any office, sop we have no clue as to how his religion would affect his making decisions.
In the 1950's and 60's people never said that the enemy was the Communists: it was always the GODLESS Communists.
Communism is an economic philosophy. It is not a religion. Stalin died and the Soviets gave up on suppressing religions in the USSR. It did not do a lot of good, since it made martyrs of believers, and that made for more believers. Cuba gave up on suppressing the Church 20 years ago.
-
We have both his ACTIONS and CRYSTAL CLEAR COMMENTARY.....as in at no time, during his entire career as a professional, which includes running and being fully in charge of a neurosurgery dept, did he EVER make religion the basis to any decision making that effected the life of someone else. Add his repeated references that makes it abundantly clear that the Constitution trumps any religious zealotry, and all you have is rampant speculation for merly publically referencing what every Chritisan believes in
As in. go fish
-
Five years is not "abruptly".
Abolition was not enacted until January 1, 1863, and then only in the parts of the country controlled by the Confederacy. Slavery was not abolished until December of 1865.
That is not "abruptly".
======================================================
Sure it is.
How many millennia had slavery been institutional before?
"Abruptly" is relative , when discussing continental drift , geologists consider the rise of the Himalayas to be abrupt.
It is faster than the War the English were fighting to end slavery in their domain, didn't that one last for seventy five years or so?
-
Exactly
-
No American politician will ever admit to being a nonbeliever or any form of doubter. But not a one dares speak of angels, devils, demons or such other than in an extremely metaphorical sense. I doubt that Obama actually believes in Satan, but mentioning Satan would be unwise.
I think that perhaps one might discuss angels and the Devil with Jimmy Carter, but he is the only one honest enough to do so.
-
All of it irrelevant....unless of course you're accusing Obama of lying about his proclaiming he's a Christian. Being a Christian, by definition, means you believe in Satan, and all his demons, and that Satan is repetitively trying to coerce you into unrighteous ways
But if you're going to go on record and proclaim that Obama lied about himself being a Christian, well, the accusation would have merit given his track record of lying
-
I do not think that most theologians would agree that you must believe in the Devil and demons to be a Christian.
You apparently think so, but once you put aside the possibility of the entire human race being condemned forever because of temptations of a devil possessed talking snake to take a bite out of the one forbidden fruit that did not have to be there in the first place as manifestations of a loving God (who sent the snake and installed the Tree) , then the need for Satan sort of falls away into a sea of childish illogic.
I doubt that President Obama thinks much about Satan or demons.
I find that comforting.
-
It is not required to believe in Satan or demons to be a Christian.
As a Christian, it is
-
There is no mention for Satan in the Apostles' Creed. Satan is mostly a colorful costume option for Hallowe'en.
I have observed one of the largest assemblages of Hallowe'en costumes on Earth at Waikiki in Honolulu on several October 31sts, and I would say that people wearing devil costumes outnumber people wearing angel costumes by a factor of 50 to one. I have yet to see a single Jesus costume there. I agree that Jesus is not exactly Hallowe'en tradition, but he is the most famous guy to return from the dead, and many of the costumed people at Waikiki are Japanese, who tend to twist all religious customs to their own aesthetic standards. There were several Buddha costumes (the fat jolly Buddha you see in Chinese restaurants), but no Mohammads or Jesi.
I do not attribute the popularity of Satan in costume parades to Satan's bewitchings: I just think that people prefer red and horns to white, wings and halo. Wings are popular, but more with Tinkerbell, Mothra and Rodan than with angels.
Was Satan involved in the Hadj Stampede in Mecca? Some of those trampled were on their way to throw pebbles at a column that personifies Satan.
Islam is clearly NOT a well thought out religion for all of mankind. To wit:
(1) The Muslim calendar has twelve lunar months, and therefore the month of the Hadj rotates through the seasons. Ramadan as well as the Hadj, also rotates through the seasons. Ramadan requires that people refrain from eating, drinking, smoking ANYTING during daylight hours. The can only ear or drink after sunset.
There are periods in which the sun does not set above the Arctic and Antarctic Circles for as long as four months, so pious Muslims in much of Alaska and parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Canada and Antarctica would die dehydration and starvation. Mohammad, of course, was unaware of the geography of the Earth, but one assumes that Allah, was not.
(2) If everyone were a Muslim, there is NO WAY that the hadj could be carried out without serious reforms. There are two many people to avoid crowd stampedes now. Multiply that by seven and it would mean that they would have to limit hadjs to a once in a lifetime deal, or end the tradition entirely.
(3) Of course, Islam is silly. The concept of Allah as an all powerful creature that wants everyone to tell him how great and exclusive he is five times a day suggests that the Almighty is a vain creature more like Donald Trump than a seriously intellectual leader, like, say the Dalia Lama. But the Christian and Jewish concepts are also pretty much caricature deities as well.
Of course, there are special dispensations for Arctic Muslims, but still, the Koran ignores the physical geography of the planet, and takes a 7th century view of it.
-
You can observe and rationalize your agnostic versions all day. Doesn't get around the FACT, that specific fo being a Christian is not just the belief that Christ died for our sins, and rose 3 days later, but that Satan exists as well. Even attempting to coerce Christ himself, but failed miserably. You're not required to believe, especially since you're not a Christian. Point being, if one peoclaims themself a Christian, then by definition, they believe in Satan. Simple as that. What they do or say, beyond that, is their decision
-
Jesus said he would return soon, and he didn't. Not in a lifetime, not in a century not in 1000 or probably 2000 years.
;I am reminded "There is a lot of crap here, there must be a pony in here somewhere".
"Jesus Christ" is mostly a creation of Paul or Tarsus, anyway.
-
You don't get the chose Christ's definition of "soon", sorry to say. And as a Christian, one does believe in Satan, including your precious Obama. Unless of course he's lying about claiming he's a Christian, to add to his massive resume of lies
-
Supposedly. Jesus is God and God is all-knowing, and that would include knowing what humans understand by the words they use.
Language only communicates when both the speaker and the listener agree mutually on the meaning of the words.
Everyone knows what "soon" means. Jesus defined it:
"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
So Jesus said that he would return while some of the disciples he was speaking with died.
So either he failed to return by that time, or there are two or more really really REALLY old apostles still alive.
Or he lied.
It's IN THE BOOK.
Paul clearly believed that Jesus was about to return at any moment, and said so repeatedly. So it is not just me that understands the meaning of "soon".
People keep reading this, and many are so dumb that fail to realize that the Bible was written waaaaaay back when, and they paint on walls "Jesus is coming"
Cristo viene ya.
-
Putting aside how completely out of context you're taking the scripture, like I said, you, a puny little human, and non-believer to boot, don't get to define God's time parameters, or confining God to what you define as "soon"
-
Jesus defined his own parameters quite clearly. The context is there. It says what it says.
He said he would return before some of those he was speaking to has "tasted death". And they died and he did not return, That simple.
I get to interpret the Bible any way I choose. As I said, Paul is mostly responsible for what Christianity became. Jesus led a group of Jews who never ceased being Jews.
-
No one claimed that what Jesus said isn't what Jesus said. The issue is your puny human definitions, trying to be applied upon a diety. As in, you don't get to define his time parameters.
So, yea, you can make all kinds of things up. Doesn't make it applicable in any way to Christianity, however
-
Again, JESUS defined his parameters. "I will return before some of you have died". Well, he did NOT return.
The only way that his statement was not a false prediction is if some of the disciples are still alive?
I would think that a couple of guys so ancient would have been noticed during the past two thousand years.
No one was sworn to secrecy.
SOON does not mean "in the next five thousand years in any language spoken by any human.
-
No, YOU are trying to define his with your human effort to paint soon in some form of human sense. Sorry, you simply don't have that level of Omnipotent clearance
And yes, he DID return, 3 days later. So you can put that attempt to contort scripture to rest
-
This was a different return after the return from the grave. After he returned from the grave, he promised to return AGAIN and that is the quote from Matthew.
And no, he didn't return
Read the damned book, sirs.
You believe but you don't even know WHAT you believe.
-
What is the problem with having some very old Christians around?
Is staying alive longer than Methuselah more miraculous than coming back from the dead?
-
Is staying alive longer than Methuselah more miraculous than coming back from the dead?
=====================================================================
Any doctor would say that staying alive for 2000 years is FAR more miraculous. People get resusitated in hospitals on a daily basis.
But there no evidence that there are any 2000 years old disciples around. That is the sort of thing people notice.
-
There's a lot of trees that old, might be a few fish that old.
Resuscitation is a sort of a special case, a jumpstart only works if it is done quickly.
Methuselah only went for one millennium, there are a lot of fish that old , and perhaps a few whales.
-
You believe but you don't even know WHAT you believe.
You have a serious issue with this notion you know what others think & believe. You have no fricken idea what I believe, and you better grasp the fact that I do. ANY person that claims to be a Christian believes that:
A) Christ died for us, so that we may enter the kingdom of God
B) Satan exists, and is forever attempting to cast doubt and coerce us to perform acts contrary to Christian ethics & morals
It doesn't get much simpler than that....period. Now, as stated before YOU are not required to believe that, but any Christian does......including your precious Obama......unless of course, he's lying about being a Christian
-
How does it work to be a Christian that doesn't believe in Satan?
Jesus believed in Satan, and Satan believes in Jesus.
Which one does one argue with?
-
Jesus believed in Satan, and Satan believes in Jesus.
Which one does one argue with?
==================================================================
Jesus believed that insanity was caused by demonic possession, and that the demons could be transferred into a herd of pigs, which would then become suicidal.
Paul liked to discuss how faith should be tested by furgling with snakes. This has resulted in a large number of snake handlers getting bit and killed over the years.
Demons as a cause of insanity is not something that sane rational people believe in anymore. The usual Christian reaction is to just ignore it as though it never happened or was mentioned.
We are LOTS BETTER at curing leprosy than Jesus ever was. There were lepers running all over the place and Jesus allegedly cured less than a dozen of them.
When was the last time you saw a leper, other than on TV or film?
-
How does it work to be a Christian that doesn't believe in Satan?
It doesn't. And as we can all see now, xo having lost that argument has now shifted in simply trying to "disprove" Christianity itself ::)
-
Well, the idea that all evil is somehow controlled by a defective angel is rather quaint, considering that an omnipotent and sane God would no more allow such an entity to run about among the beings he loves than a sane doctor would refuse to try to eliminate ebola or pneumonia in a hospital.
Do you believe that insanity is caused by demons, sirs? Do you believe that insanity can be cured by transferring demons to a herd of pigs? Do you believe that demons would cause pigs to become suicidal, when it did not seem to have that effect on the insane man? The obvious thing an omnipotent being (and we are told that Jesus was God, or at least God, Jr.) would be to just eliminate the demons.
I mean, you yourself would try to SHOOT a crazy person with your trusty Roscoe rather than transfer his demons into a herd of pigs, a gaggle of geese, a clowder of cats, wouldn't you?
Do you believe that testing one's faith by furgling with venomous snakes is something that a holy inspired person should advocate, as Paul did?
It seems to be a stupid thing to advocate, considering all the people who have managed to kill themselves by snake furgling.
-
And you have every right to believe whatever you want. But you have no right or standing or even credibility to dictate what others must believe or must not believe. #IAmAChristian....period. And if Obama is indeed a "Christian", then he too believes not just in Christ, but in Satan and his minions....period
And the best part is....you don't have to
-
I observe that you refuse to answer the questions posed.
Are your beliefs too silly for you to own up to them?
Can't you proudly state "Yes, I believe that God shows His great love for me by creating a defective angel and demons to lure me into evil"?
Can't you say, "why YES, it was ever so clever of Paul to preach to people that they could and should test their faith by playing with venomous snakes? What a fine idea for a saintly man to suggest! How glorious of God to put that idea into his head!"
-
That question assumes I accept every one of your puny human driven non-believing parameters. Sorry. Now, if you were a Discples of Christ Minister asking said question, then I might be inclined to take it seriously. You aren't, so I'm under no need to
-
They are not my parameters. They are in the Bible. I have made nothing up.
You have run out of arguments. Pfft.
<does Church Lady style victory dance>
-
Yes, they are. When you've renounced your agnostic ways, and have taken up a walk with God, then we can address your parameters with a tad more credibility
-
That is just dumb.
Once you believe Tinkerbelle can fly, you are worthy to discuss Peter Pan.
Once you believe lowering taxes, you are worthy of discussing the sanity of Republicans.
-
Nothing dumb at all about having a serious conversation about religion. When you decide to want to have one, you'll know where to find......any of us
-
Nothing dumb at all about having a serious conversation about religion. When you decide to want to have one, you'll know where to find......any of us
He is here as a volunteer, his skill and his enthusiasm are what they are, we can't demand better.
Indeed , his availability to discuss is phenomenal, lets be appreciative.
We are not converting him, and he is not converting us, what are we enjoying?
-
I disagree with the "snake handlers" Paul did say that there would be protection , but it is clearly not absolute, Gods business isn't making supermen.
People on Gods business can expect Gods help , not invulnerability.
Remember, one of the temptations of Christ was to fling himself off a tower so that the angels could demonstrate a catch. Jesus rebuked the Devil for asking him to "test" God.
I understand this as God is tough to trick, he knows the difference between a genuine need for protection and a vain call for attention.
Or I could be wrong, it is amazing how many "snake handlers " carry on for years .
-
Once you believe Tinkerbelle can fly, you are worthy to discuss Peter Pan.
Once you believe lowering taxes, you are worthy of discussing the sanity of Republicans.
It is certainly possible to discuss stuff without agreeing.
But discussing stuff you do not understand is different , but how does one avoid it?
I just barely know what I do not know, I am sure there is more to my lack of knowledge than I have kept up with.
-
There are many, many instances in which some Christian missionary demonstrates that the superior powers of God compared with the lesser powers of pagan gods. Ireland abounds in tests in which the Druid priests do something impressive, and then St Patrick does something even MORE supernatural and of course, all the peasants abandon the Druids and their deities and then embrace Jesus. Some of these miracles are attributed to religious relics, a toebone of St. Ursula, a finger of St Stephen, and so on.
Then there are the instances in which the Christian priest cannot pull off his trick, and in these cases, of course, he is rebuked for "testing the power of God".
I have read several books in both Spanish and English of miracles of various saints, some of which seem to resemble are pretty lame parlor tricks. The Middle Ages was boring as Hell, and when the priests came to town, people expected some sort of show. Telling them they were all born in sin and were headed straight to the fiery pits of Hades was generally met fewer results than demonstrating of "wonder-workin' pawr", jst as faith healers get more converts than hellfire and damnation preachers.
Of course, after an earthquake, flood, forest fire, volcanic eruption or mudslide, the hellfire and damnation bit goes over pretty well. Most people generally all can be made to feel guilty of SOMETHING.
People in general, especially women, fear snakes. Some snakes are venomous, others won't even bite if provoked. And everyone knows that even small snakes can kill you. So snake handling has all the fixin's of an impressive religious sideshow. Lots of people like to watch impending disaster. That is the big draw for NASCAR and destruction derbies. Lacking old cars, Paul or some other religious sideshow act surely put on a snake handling fest, and people ate it up, so Paul, the ultimate PR dude, either tried doing it himself or recruited a snake handler who was successful at not getting killed.
Had the snake bit and killed the guy, then he would have been accused of "testing God" and put down as a heretic, of course, and snake handling as an approved test of faith would never have made it into the Bible.
I fail to see why I am not "serious"about debating religion unless I claim to be a whole hog believer. That is the problem with religious "study': it is not real study at all.
No chemist demands that I must swear that I sincerely believe that a penny will be dissolved in acid before being permitted to test the idea.
Today, I discovered that my neighbor's yappy little dog, that harassed me with nonstop barking by day and by night can be dissuaded from barking at me by squirting him in the face with a water pistol. This worked for about five minutes and then he was back yapping again. I then filled my trusty squirt gun with a 50-50 mic=x of vinegar and water and that shut him up for the rest of the afternoon. He ran away and hid on the other side of the house.
That is how Science works: pose a theory, then try to see how well it works. Now I know to shut up the yappy dog.
-
I fail to see why I am not "serious"about debating religion unless I claim to be a whole hog believer.
Because anyone "serious" about discussing it, wouldn't resort to trying to demean the person they're having the "discussion with", with examples of the tooth fairy
No chemist demands that I must swear that I sincerely believe that a penny will be dissolved in acid before being permitted to test the idea.
Nor would you be demeaning the Chemist as some gypsy want-to-be, with his toy play set. See the difference? It's in the "how", that demonstrates if you're trying to be serious or not. Here's a hint, trying to demean and denigrate the other person & their belief is NOT trying to have a serious discussion
-
You are making no sense.
There may or may never have been a Yeshua ben Yacuf, aka Jesus, But the one that appears in the NT is mostly a creation of Paul of Tarsus. Paul is the inventor of "Christianity", and he was a very clever man. He realized that as a subcult within Judaism, his cult would never expand, due to (a) the limited number of Jews and (b) the rather great resistance of Jews to redefine the Messiah as an actual Deity, rather than a second King David, a victorious military leader.
When Shimon Bar Kokhba came along, declared himself the Messiah, he organized the Jewish people as a military force, and the united Jewish people drove the Romans out of Palestine. He was celebrated as the "Son of the Star".
Lamentably, however, there were more Romans than Jews, and the Romans returned and wiped Bar Kokhba's rebels out. Eventually, the Temple was destroyed, and none of the actual events about the civil strife between Romans and Jews made it into the Bible. The Bible is seriously incomplete as history, especially the New Testament.
The Jews decided that since Bat Kokhba was defeated, he was not the Messiah after all.
-
No, I'm making perfect sense, that you're trying to deflect from. I demonstrate just how often you change the subject when you're losing an argument, then ridicule and try to denounce Christianity, and now trying to infer that's a "serious discussion", when you bring out tooth-fairies. Hardly
-
It is not my fault that Christianity includes people furgling snakes to prove their faith or demons being cast into swine. I did not make up the tale of all humanity being made sinful because of what some distant ancestors ate when a talking snake tempted them. I do not need to ridicule Christianity for any of that.
So, do you believe, as Carson seems to, that SATAN caused Charles Darwin to write the Origin of Species to befuddle the tale of Earth being created in seven actual calendar days (as the Seventh Day Adventists claim)?
Imagine how silly it would make this country look if he declared that Global Warming was another of Satan's bogus myths.
-
No one is doing anything with snakes, so you can drop that deflection, not to mention again demonstrating how unserious you are in "discussing" anything Christianity
What I believe, and what Carson believes, and what Obama believes, (if he's being truthful that he's a Christian), is that Satan is ever attempting to coerce you to do/perform that which God would find inappropriate, if not sinful
-
Wait wait wait...!
You are talking about Ben Carson and snake handling?
That is not his church!
Should I speak of XO and Bertrand Russell and Fidel Castro as if their belief set were interchangeable ? I don't think it would be entirely fair to equate you and all other Atheists , Agnostics and Heathens as monolithic. There are several small differences I have been made aware of.
There are things all Christians believe to meet the definition, but snake handling is an outlier minority. If you are trying to connect Ben Carson with Snake Handling , this must mean that what he has actually said and done is not sufficiently objectionable without the embellishment.
-
People in general, especially women, fear snakes. Some snakes are venomous, others won't even bite if provoked. And everyone knows that even small snakes can kill you. So snake handling has all the fixin's of an impressive religious sideshow. Lots of people like to watch impending disaster. That is the big draw for NASCAR and destruction derbies. Lacking old cars, Paul or some other religious sideshow act surely put on a snake handling fest, and people ate it up, so Paul, the ultimate PR dude, either tried doing it himself or recruited a snake handler who was successful at not getting killed.
The way the story goes in the scripture , Paul was camping and was attacked by a wild snake , which he shook off into the fire.
If he did this often , you would expect more mention.
I don't think it is credible to say that Paul "invented " Christianity , there isn't really a motive for the guy to come up with a scheme that just gets him arrested a lot.
That Paul is highly influential is obvious, but being this influential from jail cells is just another miracle. As a prophet his sincerity got tested to the utmost, prophets old testament and new , had a retirement plan you have to be a prophet to want.
-
I don't think it is credible to say that Paul "invented " Christianity , there isn't really a motive for the guy to come up with a scheme that just gets him arrested a lot.
That was good enough for Thomas Paine, Lenin, Stalin, Joan of Arc, the guy who invented Koscot Interplanetary Cosmetics, Oral Roberts, Ho Chi Minh, William Miller. They heard the "voice" or perhaps "voices" and decided to act. For every one of them who was successful, there are hundreds who were arrested and killed, beaten and forgotten. Paul believed his own bullshit: so did Mao, Joan of Arc, Lenin, the previously mentioned Simon Bar Kokhba, Moses, Ezequiel, Socrates. This is not unusual human behavior.
Paul was not after monetary gain, obviously, he was a prophet, and prophets do it to attract followers and of course, they believe that they are doing God's will. Or fulfilling some sort of destiny. You are thinking in 20th Century terms: Paul was not of this century, and neither were his motives.
-
You are so far off the reservation. All my years of attending Church & Sunday School, and all those churches I also visited, and not ONCE was Paul ever referred to as anything other but a disciple or apostle, no different than Peter or Matthew. In some discussions Paul was referred to as the 12th Disciple/Apostle, to step into Judas' spot, after Judas betrayed Christ. Point being, that in the Christian faith, he was father/inventer to nothing religion.
-
You need to read up on Paul and the history of the Church, then. Paul was personally more responsible for the spreading of Christianity than anyone else, Jesus included.
Paul was the one who decided that men did not have to be circumcised to become Christians, which was a change in what he thought Jesus taught, being as Paul circumcised Timothy BEFORE he decided to change this.
I doubt that you will be hearing a sermon on this, but here is a Christian commentary on the subject:
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16491/is-it-hypocritical-for-paul-to-circumcise-timothy-in-act-163
I did not at any point say that Ben Carson believed in snake handling. I said the Bible, specifically Paul, mention snake handling.
Of course, it is possible that Paul wrote all, some or none of the various books that are attributed to him. But they are in the Bible, which is the basis for Christianity, and that is what I was referring to.
The Old Testament says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) which suggests that witches exist, and we should kill them.
I did not say that Jesus bewitched anyone. Bewitch suggests an evil influence, and Jesus is never portrayed as evil.
-
I've read plenty, thank you very much. Most importantly, the Bible. What he spread was the word of God, just the same as Jesus, who initiated it, and his Apostles who followed. That he may have spread it more, doesn't negate the fact he invented nothing. The Christian religion is ALL Christ
-
How many Books would there be in the New Testament if you remove those attributed to Paul?
Did Jesus say anything at all about converting Gentiles? Did he say anything about circumcision? He did not, because it was assumed that all his male followers were Jews.
Jesus was a Jew, The word "Christ" is Greek. Jesus was not Greek, and was not referred to as "Jesus Christ".
The growth of the Christian religion was due to Paul proselytizing among Gentiles. I don't think Jesus say more than a dozen words to any Gentile in the entire Bible.
-
How many Books would there be in the New Testament if you remove those attributed to Paul?
Irrelevant. Whatever "growth", was not Paul's message, but Christ's......period.
-
Jesus is the guy's name. Jesus wrote nothing. What was written was attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John, but who they were is debatable. Very little was written at all until 50 years after the death of Jesus.
He became "Christ" after Paul.
You are not very well read on this subject.
-
The person not so well read here is the one trying desperately to rewrite the gospels. Sorry, Paul invented nothing,. Simply was a very effective apostle of Jesus
-
Any biblical scholar worthy of his salt explains the huge influence of Paul on the creation and spread of the religion.
At most, Jesus founded a cult within Judaism that did not cater even minimally to Gentiles.
The very word "Christian" was not used in Jesus' time.
-
My faith doesn't rest in "biblical scholars", who look to try and disprove the bible. It rests in the FACT that Jesus CHRIST died for my sins, and without his sacrifice, I'd be damned for all eternity. At MOST, you have a very effective Apostle and follower of Christ, in Paul, who we can argue, was the most effective in spreading the word of Jesus
-
Paul had nothing to do with the Christians of Ethiopia, or India where quite successful Christian churches were established.
Paul's influence is great , especially to those with European heritage.
But of your list of influential people , I would expunge all of the ones that were self aggrandizing, like Mao or violent like Thomas Pane. For Moses or Joan of Arc , they are more of the same.
-
Any scholar of anything tries to draw conclusions of what he is studying. This always includes disproving what is false. If you start with the premise that the hypothesis you are examining is TRUE (ie there are four elements: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind) and try to prove how they might be true (mud is a combination of water and earth, steam is a combination of fire and water,) then you will never arrive at the truth and you are a phony scholar. The Scientific Method is an effective way to determine the truth and it always starts with the premise that nothing is known to be true, everything is subject to scrutiny.
The Scientific Method started to be used in the Renaissance, and most of the Chemical elements were discovered by using it.
Water was considered to be an element. But it can be separated by electricity into two gases, and so it is not an element but a compound formed by two gaseous elements.
You start with a hypothesis (water is an element) and try to disprove it. That is the route to knowledge. Listening to "the voices" has been proven NOT to be a route to knowledge, because different people hear different voices, and they cannot all be correct.
All knowledge starts with doubt.
-
This isn't a class. Religion is not a measure of Scientific method. One's walk with God is an act of Faith....not some act that must be proven to someone else. You're not required to believe ..... anything. THAT's the point.
But somehow, you feel obligated to try and disprove it to those who do have a faith. In other words, you're doing what so many like you criticize religious folks in doing....trying to convince others to follow them. You're simply trying to convince others to not follow their faith. It's no different than some religious zealot. Consider yourself the Jim Baker of Agnostics, thumping your subscription of Scientific Journal
You did get one thing right......it starts with doubt. Doubt is where Satan reigns. Which is what Christians of faith believe.....including your prescious Obama....if he wasn't lying about that as well
-
All knowledge about everything starts with doubt.
Paul had a huge impact on Christianity everywhere. Without Paul, Gentiles cannot really become Christians.
You will find Paul's writings in both India and Ethiopia.
Christians were pretty rare in India until the Europeans arrived. They still are pretty rare in India, actually. 2.3% of Indians are Christians. They rank somewhere between second and tenth most popular in different states of India. Most common in Goa, a former Portuguese colony and in Pondecherry, which was a French colony. The missionaries to India in the third and fourth centr=uries were of the Syriac type, and Paul influenced them as well.
-
Yes, Paul did have an "impact" on Christianity. But he invented nothing, and was not followed by anyone. Paul did the following ... of Jesus' teachings. And Whether Christianity was rare in some place, and prevelent in others is all completely irrelevent to the topic of Carson, and what it means to be a Christian....which includes the belief of Satan ::)
-
Paul invented the idea that Gentiles could be Christians without following the umpteen commandnents of the Old Testament. Jesus, as you may recall, said that the commandments (and there are hundreds of them, not just the Ten Charleton Heston Commandments you are familiar with) must be followed. Paul said, nope, ally ally oxen free. All you need is Jeeezus.
-
No, that'd be you inventing the idea that Paul was inventing something other than following the Christian faith. sorry.....go fish
-
Paul as a prophet and teacher didn't need to invent anything , his prophecy is a gift of God and nothing else.
Jesus told all of the apostles to spread the word and recruit from every nation, Paul wrote a lot and was an effective leader but the other apostles were also pretty busy.
I think that Paul was important , but it is Christ that is crucial.
-
BINGO
-
Jesus, as you may recall, said that the commandments (and there are hundreds of them, not just the Ten Charleton Heston Commandments you are familiar with) must be followed. Paul said, nope,.....
Not so fast .
This is only half true about the diet , and not true at all otherwise.
Jesus ,you may recall ,had a problem with the hyperliteral Pharisee who were all about enforcement of the law to the greatest degree.
It is Jesus who discussed the idea that the law was for man rather than man was for the law.
-
The Bible claims that Jesus said a lot of things at one time that contradicted what he said at another.
It is pretty clear that what Jesus was up to was a populist reform movement within Judaism that had little or nothing to do with Gentiles. Gentiles were simply tolerated, as a part of the local climate.
Paul was the one who decided that Christianity was going to be a movement that sought to convert Gentiles. There is zero indication that any other disciples had this in mind. Jesus brother, James opposed Paul, and has been relegated to obscurity. They made him a saint after he was dead. Eventually Paul convinced Peter and that is when the Christian movement separated itself from the Jewish religion.
Without Paul, Christianity would neither have grown into a major religion, nor changed in the many ways it has since the crucifixion. It was not decided until the Council of Nicea, in AD 325. Note that Jesus said NOTHING about the Trinity. He did not mention "The Father, Me, and the Holy Ghost". The Trinity was affirmed at Nicea, a near what is today Istanbul.
What constituted the Canon of Judaism were not entirely decided upon until 200 CE, so whatever Jesus referred to mat or might not have been what is considered a compendium of Jewish beliefs today. What should be in the New Testament has never been entirely decided upon by all the various traditions of Christianity, but the Catholics seem to have reached agreement by about 400 CE. There was disagreement by many about whether to consider the Old Testament part of the Christian Canon, but, being as it includes prophesies about how Jesus was the alleged Jewish Messiah, they included it, though not in the same arrangement as Jews today consider it.
There are many instances in which Books and passages of the Bible were included and excluded by the votes of men who had never read them. Perhaps someone told them, "we have to pass it to what is in it".
Who was born on December 25th? That would be Mithra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_mysteries The date was chosen because it is the date at which the days begin to get observably longer: the Sun is returning. Being as Mirthraism was a Persian religion, and it mostly excluded women, it is pretty obscure today, as the Muslims regarded it as idolatrous, which, of course, it clearly was. It was the most popular religion among the Rokman legions, who, of course, were mostly NOT Roman, especially in the Eastern part of the Empire. At the time of Jesus actual birth, we hear that shepds were about, tending their flocks, and of course that would require vegetation. There is not much reason for a shepherd to tend his sheep near Bethlehem in December, as there would be nothing for said sheep to eat. Jesus was probably born in the Spring, but the Dec. 25th date was near rather a lot of popular holiday celebrations in the Roman Empire, so that seems to be why that date was selected.
And Jesus was said to have been born in times of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE, so Jesus lived, not from 1 CE to 33 CE, but from somewhere around 4-8 BCE and 25-29 CE. The Bible does describe historical events, but not precisely or well or in any way completely. There si doubt that there was an actual settlement at Nazareth at the time of Jesus' life. There is evidence of settlement before 700 BCE and after 300 CE, but towns were destroyed and not rebuilt until centuries had passed.
Christianity was spread to India and Ethiopia by Egyptian and Syrian missionaries, and their sermons contained great amounts of Paul, although Paul did not venture to either place. Most Indian Christians are descendants of people converted by European missionaries, by the way, and are about 2.3% of the Indian population. It ranks third, after Hinduism (79%) and Islam (14%). India is the birthplace of even more religions than the "Holy Land".
The Church changed in many ways during the time of Paul until the Council of Nicea. It was decided that the communion wine would actually change into human blood. Humans are not kosher, and drinking actual blood and of course, cannibalism and anathema to the Jewish traditions. The Jewish Scholar Maimonides described in great detail what was unkosher about Christianity of his time (1135-1204). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides
He was born in Córdoba, Spain, and lived in Morocco, Egypt and in other places. He is honored with a plaque in the House of Representatives. I doubt that he commentaries on Christianity were known at the time. Jews sort of deliberately fail to recall commentaries on Christianity than are critical. It has been a pretty good idea to do this. Maimonides had rather a long list of Christian beliefs that he considered heretical, untrue and trayf. I read his works in Spanish, but I am sure that it is available in English online. He is somewhat difficult to wade through, as he likes long sentences. Some of what I have read of his works were written in Arabic and Hebrew, so perhaps the translator is to blame. Maimonides is particularly critical of the misinterpretation of what a Messiah is, and how the Trinity is an anathema. He is a strict monotheist.
-
That is a lot of needless complication to support a theory that is not that complicated at all.
Jesus did not restrict Christianity to Jews, there are several scriptures to point to.
Here is one.
Matthew 28:16-20New International Version (NIV)
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
If Jesus had intent to start a political movement , then he unaccountably did nothing about it, said nothing about it.
If by dint of deliberate misinterpretation , one can reverse the meaning of Jesus words , this is probably a pretty serious offence that Jesus will call on account.
I know Maimonides very little , but I suspect this is what he was doing just from what you have provided so far.
-
That is a lot of needless complication to support a theory that is not that complicated at all.
BINGO
-
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
=================================================================
This is NOT a quote from Jesus when he was actually ALIVE. This was added after his death.
On the same occasion, he said he would return before the last of the disciples had died, and that was an unfulfilled promise as well.
During Jesus actual, pre-crucifixion ministry, he catered to Jews and Jess alone.
-
Being that at the time, he didn't have access to a private jet, his travels were a tad limited. Point being his message was directed to EVERYONE, Jews & Gentiles alike. It was a simple, uncomplicated message to the masses. That you have no obligation to believe either.
-
The point is that that was not part of his actual message at all.
You say Jesus was God, but then you claim he was limited.
Even after Jesus came back from the dead, which supposedly proved he was God, he was still limited?
An omnipotent ubiquitous God is limited?
-
No, you're trying to make Christ's message so complicated, it would require a lawyer to figure it out. It wasn't and isn't. And no, I never claimed Jesus was "limited", in any way, shape or form. His message is crystal clear, for all to either accept/follow......or not.
-
"Being that at the time, he didn't have access to a private jet, his travels were a tad limited."
Well, that sounds like an admission of limitations to me. God is everywhere, God is all powerful.
So what does he need apostles for?
-
Limitations to Jesus, in the time of Jesus. If God wanted, Jesus could have flown everywhere, but that would have completely screwed the notion of faith, which is the whole point behind accepting Christ. Its one of faith, not some scientific method. That's why he died, and rose on the 3rd day, and that's why all the apostles
And before you try to pull the literal card again, yes, Jesus was God as well as the Son of God. I realize this concept is foreign to you, however it makes perfect sense to a Christian.
-
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
=================================================================
This is NOT a quote from Jesus when he was actually ALIVE. This was added after his death.
On the same occasion, he said he would return before the last of the disciples had died, and that was an unfulfilled promise as well.
During Jesus actual, pre-crucifixion ministry, he catered to Jews and Jess alone.
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we are discussing nothing of consequence.
Don't take my word alone for this , Paul agrees.
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-284/what-if-christ-didnt-rise
verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 15,
...... But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God, that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, in fact, if the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."
It is ordinary in Islam to believe that Jesus has never yet died, but this is probably not the argument you wanted.
Either way it is an effort to nullify the main mission of Jesus as described by Jesus and his disciples.
-
If the main mission of Jesus was to create a religion for Gentiles, he would have preached to more Gentiles. There were plenty about. And there would have been a Gospel According to Jesus, not four somewhat contradictory tales written decades after the events portrayed. The Hebrew religion revered the printed word, yet there is not one mention of Jesus reading or writing anything in any language.
What really happened is that most likely, Paul had a nervous breakdown, saw it as a sign from God and used what he had heard about Jesus to whomp up a new religion. It was not necessarily a bad thing, considering that it was more humane that other religions around at the time. Paul was not an eyewitness to anything that Jesus did or said. Most of what Paul knew or thought he knew was hearsay. But Paul was apparently a great PR man with a lot of charisma.
Paul probably did not write most of what is attributed to him. This is also true of most of the books of the Old and New Testaments.
-
If the main mission of Jesus was to create a religion for Gentiles
BUT IT WASN'T. IT WAS A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST FOR "GENTILES". That's also why the Apostles, so that message could spread. You, a puny human, don't get to dictate the actions God must take in spreading his word
Again, this concept is rather simple to understand......for Christians.
-
God was not nearly so efficient as Coca Cola. More people have heard of Coca Cola than have heard of Jesus. And Coke has only been at it since 1886. That is only 129 years.
And Coca Cola did not have to get itself crucified and come back from the dead. It does not promise life everlasting, either, The truth is, it does not even satisfy thirst very well. Twelve teaspoons of sugar in colored flavored water.
I get to criticize anything I wish. I am not bound by your rules or what you think the rules are.
I do not dictate rules, and neither do you. But I know logic from illogic.
There was some saint that claimed that he was a believer precisely because the Christian religion does not make sense.
Or perhaps it was Tertullian:
Natus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
“The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”
None of this bit makes much sense, but it gets quoted a lot.
-
As I said, you don't get to dictate how God spreads his message, or what's lgical to God. All you get to decide is if you're willing to listen and accept......or not. That's it
-
Yes, I do.
I can say any damned thing I wish.
I do not believe that an all powerful creator deity would be illogical. And I get to say so. God can always pipe in if he wants to, but he seems to be mute.
-
No one claimed you couldn't say any damned thing that you wish. The issue is the message of God. You can accept it or not....That's it. Criticising it, and condemning it, is akin to not accepting it. Capice'?
-
If the main mission of Jesus was to create a religion for Gentiles, he would have preached to more Gentiles. There were plenty about.
Jesus did serve several Gentiles and preached to whomever there was to listen. That he went first to Jewish venues seems natural to those of us who consider the relationship between God and Abraham contractual. Fulfilling all as promised to the chosen ,he then opened his bounty to all comers when all Jews who would had come. And there would have been a Gospel According to Jesus, not four somewhat contradictory tales written decades after the events portrayed. The Hebrew religion revered the printed word, yet there is not one mention of Jesus reading or writing anything in any language.
Discussing this with you has made me think on this. Jesus wrote in the sand , and made his apostles learn his words, but why didn't he use a more durable medium? Why was not one of the apostles made a secretary ? I can only speculate, but this doesn't seem to have harmed his message, four of the eyewitnesses wrote their account and earlier, and later prophecy matches, so what is the complaint really? If the message itself is hard to argue with , you will argue with the recording medium?
What really happened is that most likely, Paul had a nervous breakdown, saw it as a sign from God and used what he had heard about Jesus to whomp up a new religion. It was not necessarily a bad thing, considering that it was more humane that other religions around at the time. Paul was not an eyewitness to anything that Jesus did or said. Most of what Paul knew or thought he knew was hearsay. But Paul was apparently a great PR man with a lot of charisma.
Paul probably did not write most of what is attributed to him. This is also true of most of the books of the Old and New Testaments.
Too bad for Saint Stephen that Paul did not have this nervous breakdown a little earlier?
But of course I do not pity Saint Stephen, who in the sight of Paul was stoned to death while keeping a pretty positive attitude,....
I should envy Saint Stephen, I won't be sure I can have such a positive attitude at the end till I get there.
-
? If the message itself is hard to argue with , you will argue with the recording medium?
The ,message itself is very EASY to argue with. The Gospels contradict one another, they are full of vague parables and crap that can be explained in various ways.
ANYONE who wants to get a message out to people correctly should WRITE THE FUCKING THING HIMSELF.
That is one thing that even the brighter members of the lesser primates know: if you want it done right, do it yourself.
If Jesus was God, and God is omnipotent and all knowing, then he was perfect and understood perfectly how to explain what he meant.
You claim that somehow people have to have faith in invisible beings. Why? People lack faith in visible beings. If God had written his own Gospel, then people would still either have to have faith that (1) God exists and (2) that he wrote it.
We have to prove some things, like the Laws of Gravity and Thermodynamics. But once proven, we assume they are still in effect and we have faith that the physical world will continue to operate in accordance with them. Having faith in something that is logically impossible does not make it a higher degree of faith. Belief in Jesus, his virgin birth,. his miracles and the resurrection are like faith in Santa or guardian angels. Or demons that cause madness and can be transferred to pigs, causing them to drown themselves.
Muslims tell me that the Koran is MORE miraculous because it was dictated to Mohammad, who then passed it on orally, BECAUSE MOHAMMAD WAS EFFING ILLITERATE..
Anyone with a brain knows that if you want to remember something accurately, you are always better off writing it down. Religion causes people to stop thinking. It is an influence for backwardness.
-
Like it has to repeated......you don't get to dictate how God must be required to have his message spread. This is Faith, not Science. There is no requirement of proof, to appease those who have no interest in believing in the 1st place
-
Anything that is, can be proven to exist.
Things that cannot be proven to exist, generally don't.
Anecdotal evidence is invalid. There is always plenty of that.
A dollar appears and the tooth disappears, it must have been the TOOTH FAIRY!
We left cookies and milk for Santa, and they were gone in the morning!
The next morning, the stone was rolled away and the tomb was EMPTY! O Hose Anna!
-
Anything that is, can be proven to exist.
Not God. You either do, or you don't believe. The anecdotal evidence is quite overwhelming if you ask me. So best don't, and go fish
-
Anecdotal information by definition is never worth a damn as proof of anything.
There is NOT ONE WORD in the entire New Testament that would be admissible in a court of law. It is all hearsay, much of it from unknown witnesses whose real names we can only guess at.
Which is ironic, since they have people swear upon it all the time in courtrooms.
I have no reason to believe.
-
Good thing then I'm not trying to prove anything then, isn't it. Nor is proof required, since this has nothing to do with science, or a court of law, or trying to convince folks who have no intention of listening to the message in the 1st place ::)
-
I heard the message, believe me. I see no evidence to believe it. It makes no logical sense.
I do not do things without evaluating them logically.
-
Of course you didn't. You're tripping all over yourself demonstrating error after error of the "message", in which Plane has been extremely patient in correcting those errors. Bravo, on his part. But I'm confident he appreciates your efforts to keep him on his toes in doing so. Good job, on your part
-
Anything that is, can be proven to exist.
Things that cannot be proven to exist, generally don't.
This is nothing like true.
Is Dark matter most of the mass of the universe?
By the time proof of this is found , something even tougher to understand will be found.
The difference between all possible knowledge and ,what we know and can prove is the difference between the infinite and the finite.
-
I am not tripping all over myself at all.
While I do not purport to be an expert at physics, this has zilch to do with the inconsistencies in the history of Christianity.
Dark matter is not involved with this.
It is very obvious that Paul, for reasons best known to himself, took the backstory of a rather minor Jewish cult and turned it into a religion primarily aimed at Gentiles. Paul was very good at what he did, far more effective than Jesus.
Israel/Palestine was NOT the center of Judaism in this period. Other than Jerusalem, the center of Jewish thought and scholarship was in Alexandria. This continued to be true until the Muslims arrived. Alexandria was the intellectual capital of the entire Roman Empire, because of the cosmopolitan population and of course, the Library, which was unique.
-
I am not tripping all over myself at all.
While I do not purport to be an expert at physics, this has zilch to do with the inconsistencies in the history of Christianity.
Dark matter is not involved with this.
It is very obvious that Paul, for reasons best known to himself, took the backstory of a rather minor Jewish cult and turned it into a religion primarily aimed at Gentiles. Paul was very good at what he did, far more effective than Jesus.
Israel/Palestine was NOT the center of Judaism in this period. Other than Jerusalem, the center of Jewish thought and scholarship was in Alexandria. This continued to be true until the Muslims arrived. Alexandria was the intellectual capital of the entire Roman Empire, because of the cosmopolitan population and of course, the Library, which was unique.
You have mischaracterized the purpose and message of Jesus, and call the result obvious?
So how was Paul involved in Pentecost?
When the miracle was that people from many lands heard their own language as the apostles spoke?
Don't say something is obvious , you are being very selective in what scriptures you accept as admissible.
The message of Christ went south to Ethiopia without Paul's direct involvement , it went East and North .
The Gospels were written in different locations and do not disagree in any important way, how easy is this with the usual four different eyewitnesses?
Paul was very gifted and persuasive, I don't mean to minimize his importance , but it is really wrong to say that he changed the message of Christ to something that Jesus would not have wanted.
-
The so-called Miracle simply never happened. Perhaps some people overheard others translate, at most. Miracles are for gullible people. Unless I personally see one, I am unconvinced. I have yet to see a miracle. I have had some coincidences, but they were not miracles.
The source of Christianity as taught in India and as taught in Ethiopia was the Syriac church, denomination or cult, and it included Paul's letters.
The Paul-free versions of Christianity (The Arianists, the Gnostics, the Trinitarians, were all denounced as heresies. Paul's version won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity
Jesus was very vague about what he wanted. Paul surely thought he was doing what Jesus wanted, but he really says very little about the actual Jesus, whom he knew only through hearsay.
Jesus established a Jesus cult, a reform group in Judaism. Paul CREATED Christianity.
-
The so-called Miracle simply never happened.
You weren't there, so you have no fricken clue if it happened or not
And news flash....CHRIST'S version of Christianity won ::)
-
The so-called Miracle simply never happened. Perhaps some people overheard others translate,...
Hahahahaa!
Nevertheless.
This is an important example of a pre-Paul appeal to all nations.
I don't think it will be hard to find more either.
-
The Jesus version was a reform movement within the Jewish tradition. Jesus said 'follow the commandments'. Paul said, forget al thart Old Testament stuff. Forget the Kosher, move the Sabbath to Sunday (Son of the Sun: Mithra, born on Dec. 25th)
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
The word CHRIST is not even a Hebrew or Aramaic word. It is Greek, and Paul spoke Greek. Paul invented the name Jesus Christ as well as the religion. Jesus might have known Greek, but it was not what Jews spoke or wrote in Galilee. Greek and Aramaic are written with different alphabets. Aramaic uses the Hebrew alphabet.
We know that Paul was a Roman citizen. ow did that happen? You paid the Romans money and they made you a citizen. I don't think kissing any idols was always required, but Romans were supposed to acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor
Elements of several other popular religions of the day were combined with the Jesus story into a new, improved Religion for Everyone, and Paul was the first of many designers and promoters. It was a process rather like designing a new brand image for what is mostly an old product.
Perhaps that was God's Plan. But if we assume that God is in the human religion business, we really have to wonder what he was thinking when he goosed Mohammad, Joseph Smith, William Miller, Sun Myung Moon and all those others into inventing their new, improved religions.
As they say on the X Files, the Truth is out there.
-
You're still trying to mix fiction with faith. It's ok though, as Christians grasp the clear difference, and Christ's message, that you keep helping to demonstrate how non-believers are both unable & unwilling can't. We'll keep you in our prayers, though
-
Speaking of fiction and faith, there is this, from the mystery religion established before Jesus:
Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
Mithra ascending to heaven in his solar cart, with sun symbolHe ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism.
This is the link for the article this was taken from. There is also rather a lot about Mithraism in Wikipedia.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
What are the odds that each of these is simply a coincidence? I would say that one might be a coincidence, but all twelve? Factorial 12 (12!) is 467.001.600 to one as the odds for this.
So, its this a coincidence, or is it likely that part of the Jesus story was adapted from Mithraism?
It could not be vice-versa, because Mithraism came first.
-
That's nice. Irrelevant, but thanks for sharing
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
Some of those co-incidences seem bent to be coincidences.
But I do not think it strange that the Persians , who had a lot of contact with the Jews, might get it almost right.
There was also an Egyptian deity that did some of the same things.
But do you think that the Moon landings were faked?
HG Wells described a moon mission in excellent detail and included details such as a launch site in Cape Canaveral.
Since HG Wells was the real author , doesn't this prove NASA is just a plagiarist?
Yes solid proof.
-
You are describing an entirely different thing when you refer to NASA. The way rockets take off is a bit of engineering that could be deduced from previous rocket launches.
A future deity being born in a manger is with shepherds hanging about on a specific date of the year (out of365) in the case of Mithra centuries before Jesus was born, THat is the sort of coincidence that does not really happen and is extremely unlikely to have been predicted. Human beings do not know the future. Whether deities know the future seems to be questionable. Are we supposed to believe that before God created humans he knew that he was going to end up drowning them. Why would God make a bet with Satan about Job if he knew the outcome? Surely Satan would have known that God was clairvoyant as well. So either the tale of Job is just some sort made up thing, or God do not know the future.
Paul took the Jesus legend, added some stuff here, took away some unpleasant bits there, and over the years more bits were added and removed.
Islam is the same sort of thing, just crafted for and by a much different culture. People like to make up stuff. Then they make itn essential part of their culture and legal system, and as they develop better knowledge, the influence wanes.
None of this means that there is no God, by the way. That is a different issue. It also does not mean that a God exists, or at some point existed.
No, the Moon landings were not faked. Florida is an ideal place for launching rockets. The temperature is more uniform, there is an ocean to fall into rather than cities and towns for the return.
The Persians did not arrange for the birth of Jesus. Persians liked inventing religions: Zoroastrianiam, Manicheaism, and of course Mithraism, not to mention Baha'i.
-
Paul took the Jesus legend, added some stuff here, took away some unpleasant bits there, and over the years more bits were added and removed.
Your completely unfounded, non-believing opinion is duly noted........and discarded
-
It is bloody obvious that Paul invented Christianity. He turned Jesus into Christ and added a variety of popular elements of other religions. He seems to have thought that this was his duty, in the same way that Mohammad and perhaps Joseph Smith and Sung Myung Moon also thought that they were doing their duty.
There are too many elements in common between Christianity and Mithraism for this to have been a coincidence. And no, the Mithraists did not copy Christian traditions, because they were first.
-
Your version of "obvious" has been so mutated, that it ranks up there now with your unfounded, uncredible cries of racist. Christians get it, you "obviously" don't. We'll keep you in our prayers
-
Rather than discuss that actual non ''coincidences'' you attack me. This is typical sirs nonsense.
-
Faith and Christianity isn't based on science or even "coincidences", so there's nothing to discuss in that vane. And as as you may have not noticed, I indicated you'd be prayed for. Hardly an "attack" ::)
-
Characters in the Bible either did what the Bible says they did, or they didn't. Events in the Bible either occurred as the Bible claims, or they didn't. It is pretty clear that Paul changed many of the rules of Judaism and that facilitated his converting thousands of Gentiles. Jesus did not address the Gentiles. All the apostles were Jews and so were nearly everyone he spoke with. The abolition of nearly all the traditional Jewish laws, the invention of a trinity, and the changing of the Messiah from a political leader into a Deity were elements that added later.
Believing that something is true does not make it true. It's like the bit in Peter Pan when Tinkerbelle starts fo falter and the audience is asked to BELIEVE, and of course they do, and Tinkerbelle smiles and flits away.
Morgan La Fey and the Lady of the Lake lost their magic when people stopped believing, making Merlin;s job ever so much more difficult.
-
One more time.....Christians get it. Others, like yourself, are simply incapable. That's too bad
-
You are believing things that have no basis in factual evidence or run counter to factual evidence.
It is precisely the same as people who believe in faeries, talismans, tarot cards, numerology, astrology and such.
Strangely, Christians condemn astrology, EXCEPT in the case of the Magi following the Star of Bethlehem.
In that particular case, then somehow astrology seemed to be valid.
If there were a Star over San Diego, how would you know it was really over San Diego and not, perhaps, Van Nuys or Bakersfield?
I went through a telescope and astronomy phase, and never noticed that an actual star was ever hovering over my town that did not appear to be hovering over other towns as well, when I traveled to them.
I suppose it could have been a UFO. But probably not an extraterrestrial one.
-
How many times must you be reminded that Christianity isn't based on the scientific method?? It's based on faith Christians get it. Others, like yourself, are simply incapable. And following a star to Bethlehem was as much about astrology, that I am to following gun control ::)
-
Who were the Magi?
They were Zoroastrian priests. They have been given the names Gaspar, Melchior and Balthazar. They came from the East. In the time of Jesus, that was the Parthian Empire, which included much of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In popular mythology, they are portrayed as being Caucasian, Black and Chinese, but there are no Black people in Persia. There are, however some pretty dark Persians, up to about two shades darker than Beyoncé: plenty dark enough to be refused a burger at any Alabama lunch counter in 1957. There are a lot of Chinese-looking people in both Afghanistan and Iran. The idea of duplicating am, Shem and Japeth (Noah;s sons) was clearly done in order to indicate that Kings of all lands came to appreciate the Baby Jesus.
=========================================================
Who Were the Magi?
Bible passages and other ancient texts give us clues about who these astrologers and 'kingmakers' were.
123next
What are "Magi"?
The original Greek in Matthew 2 calls the men who came to visit Jesus
magoi
. The text reveals that they had the wealth and knowledge to travel and offer lavish gifts; they also had knowledge about the stars ("We have seen his star in the east..."). The only other occurrence of the Greek word
magos
is in Acts 13:6, where it is translated "magician," meaning one who practices sorcery. The Greek Old Testament has an occurrence of
magos
(Daniel 2:2), and there it also means "magician."
Fortunately, other ancient literature helps us to understand who the Magi were. From the Jewish historian Josephus, the Greek historian Herodotus, and the writings of Strabo, a clearer picture of the people called the Magi appears. The Magi first appear about the 7th century B.C. in the Median empire
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/12/Who-Were-The-Magi.aspx#sb0IFlhjdIYBfz9g.99
At the time of the birth of Jesus, the Magi were an ancient priestly caste dwelling within the Parthian empire, a large area to the east of the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire.These priests practiced astrology, which at the time was a hybrid of astrology and what we now call astronomy.
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/12/Who-Were-The-Magi.aspx#sb0IFlhjdIYBfz9g.99
-
Thanks for the added references. Irrelevent to the point about Christianity, or the erroneous attempt to apply astrology, where there is none, but thanks anyways
-
Here's a hint....God can move stars, wherever and whenever he wants. If he wanted 3 wisemen to follow a specific star, there's nothing preventing him from placing it in a position that if followed, would lead them directly to Bethlehem. Yes, I know that defies science & laws of physics, but as the need continues to be required, Christianity, and God for that matter, isn't founded in physics. They're founded in faith
And the best part is, you're not obliged to believe. So knock your socks off in trying to move something, completely immovable....that being the faith of a Chrisitian
-
God can actually violate the laws of physics? You are aware that what we see in the sky are not stars, they are the light emitted by stars a very, very long time ago, I suppose?
Perhaps God sent a lighted drone to lead the wise men to Bethlehem.
They did not actually require a star, by the way. Merely some average camel trace directions would have certainly sufficed: ''proceed East unto Jerusalem, take a right at Nablus, inquire locally for a town called ''Bethlehem''.
But see, whoever wrote this was focused, perhaps obsessed on theses dudes as being able to read prophesies from the stars.
Can we really determine future events on Earth by looking at stars in the sky and constellations?
No, not really.
The idea that such things were possible came from the observation that the proper seasons of the year to plant certain crops and harvest them coincide with the appearance in the night sky of the positions of various star groupings. That is how astrology was created independently in the Middle East, India, China and among the Indians of the Americans.
Time seems to have been something the Bible's authors did not think much about. There is only one mention of time standing still. to give the Hebrews time to win a battle. The idea of traveling forward into the future or backward into the past does not seem to have occurred to them.
-
God can actually violate the laws of physics?
YES......you're finally catching on. And yes, I know much about Astronomy, as it's a fascinating area of interest of mine. Which includes that the universe is far too massive for God to have limited his creations to just this puny little planet. But that's for another thread
-
What would be the purpose of God creating the universe in the first place, if he is going to violate the Laws of Physics which he also created?
First God creates Adam and Eve, knowing that if he puts that one tree there and tells them not to eat the fruit, they will eat it.
Then he allows things to progress until people have screwed up so badly that there are only four couples of humans worth saving, so he somehow funds enough water to drown all the people except those eight who share a boat so large it will hold two of every animal on earth and enough to feed them for over a month.
But no, that is not screw up, either.
-
That's the kind of question that would fit....IF we were having a discussion about science. But as it continues to be beating you over the head with, Christianity isn't about physics, it's about faith. Laws of Physics don't apply to God. ::)
-
If we are referring to the Magi following a star the way a donkey follows a carrot, then we are referring to the Laws of Physics, but being changed from the norm by God.
The usual way to navigate by stars is by heading in the direction of the same star in the sky every night. This was made much easier by the astrolabe, but thought the Greeks invented these c. 150 BC, they were uncommon outside of the Hellenistic world. The Bible makes no mention of how exactly the Magi followed the Star od Bethlehem.
The usual description that I have read is that the Star was directly over Bethlehem and the Magi simply headed toward it. But real stars do no do this, being as they are light years away.
Everything on this planet is about science. Nothing is exempt.
-
No, we are not. We are talking line of sight. Nothing more. The star was simply directly over, as it relates to line of sight. Our sun can be directly over the skyline of LA, depending on the direction I'm looking. The planet Venus can apear directly over Mt Baldy, depending on the time of the year, and the direction I'm looking
ONE MORE TIME, this is faith, not physics. God transcends everything YOU deem as logical or natural or science related. YOU are not God. YOU do not have the power of God, who created everything. YOU don't get to limit what God can and can't do. Sorry, YOU are nothing but a creative after thought.
-
So how did the Magi know when to stop? Had they continued westward, they would have arrived at the coast of the Mediterranean.
The area around Bethlehem is rather mountainous. Travel in a straight line is impossible. If you ask your camel to leap 20 feet downward, he probably would turn around and spit in your eye. PTUI! Ugh! Not pleasant! But better than leaping down 200 feet on the back of a camel.
The Bible was unclear about exactly how the Star showed them the way, but apparently is was not a perfect method, as the Bible also says they visited King Herod, presumable in Jerusalem, and that caused Herod to order all the male babies killed. This in turn caused the Holy Family to go hide in Egypt. for a while.
One thing about killing babies is that it REALLY PISSES PEOPLE OFF. They rant and rave and complain a LOT. But in this particular case,. there is no reference to
Herod, who was a satrap of the Romans, was a pretty nice guy compared to Pontius Pilate, killing lots of , or even open, baby.
Odds are someone made that up because of previous baby killings ordered by ''Pharoah'', the nasty king of Egypt back in Moses' time. Such is the stuff of legends.
-
So how did the Magi know when to stop?
When they reached Bethlehem, where they were told they'd find a child in a manger. LINE OF SIGHT, remember? Oy vey. ::)
-
It's all about line of sight, not mere physics. Here are some examples with the moon
(http://thumbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fun-with-moon-17-630x463.jpeg)
(http://thumbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fun-with-moon-11-630x879.jpeg)
(http://thumbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fun-with-moon-1.jpeg)
-
Take a look at a topographical map of Palisrael, then imagine a line of sight trip from Iran across the desert to Jerusalem and on to Bethlehem. Observe that a straight line trip is not possible. Also, there are some mountains involved.
If the Magi were following a line of sight trajectory toward Bethlehem, they would not stop in Jerusalem. If they stopped in Jerusalem, then could be to acknowledge their presence to Herod. Of course, the star is not mentioned in other historical sources, but if they were following the star, they did not need to stop and ask for directions, did they?
The story apparently requires them to speak with Herod so he can order mass infanticide. Mass infanticide is needed so that this tale sounds properly Biblical. (Like the plague wiping out all the male Egyptian male children in the Exodus story).
By the way, the Egyptians were very prolific in chronicling their history in tombs and such and we can now decipher their hieroglyphics. Strangely, there is no mention of the Seven Plagues or the mass exodus of the huge number of Hebrews written anywhere by Egyptians. They would surely have put their bias on it (evil witchcraft or something like that) but so far no one has found any mention of this momentous event.
Or the tale of evil Herod ordering the killing of male babies. People get really incensed when a ruler does that. It surely would have been mentioned had it really happened.
There was probably an Exodus, but with many fewer Hebrews than were mentioned.
-
You're not getting it xo......maps are irreverent. If God wanted he could keep a star stationary in the direction of Bethlehem, as long as he wanted. He could move it, however he wanted, to provide safe passage for the Wiseman to reach Bethlehem, day or night. This isn't about physics, since God transcends physics and your puny limitations he must have to abide by
-
You are the one that doesn't get it. God could have prevented Mohammad from being born or thinking he was a prophet and saved a lot of lives, all of which would have been known to him if he could foresee the future. What Earthy divine purpose did Jim Jones and his crazy massacre serve?
Since you will believe anything they tell you in the Bible, there is no point to this.
-
LOL...I love when you keep proving my point. If God wanted to, he could showcase himself right now, to the whole world. If he wanted to, he could manipuate everyone's mind into believing in him alone. Remove this whole faith notion, altogether.
THIS IS ABOUT FAITH, however. God set it up so we would have the ability to choose to believe.....or not. To act in a Christ-like way.....or not. Chrisitianity is founded on FAITH, not physics, not science, and especially not your inability to grasp such a concept, with your puny human driven parameters that God must adhere to :o
-
Your concept of God is simply illogical. Belief in the Tooth Fairy, astrology, numerology and witch craft is also based on faith.
-
My concept of God is no different than any other Christian. Nice to know that you think Obama believes in such things as the tooth fairy & witch craft though
-
It is your belief that all Christians believe as you do. I don't make blanket judgements about religion. Most people do not discuss the magical and miraculous aspects of Christianity, because there is nothing to be gained from it even if you persuade them of your own view.
I don't think that Obama believes in the tooth fairy or witchcraft.
The Old Testament says. '' Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'' So I suppose you would say that you also believe in witches, on account of it being in the Book.
The same is true of demonic possession, as in the case of the Gaderine swine.
Most people who claim to believe the entire Bible is true have not actually READ the thing. They figure that over the last twenty years or so, their preacher has covered it all. But such is not the case. Preachers have guides to writing sermons, and vast chunks of the Bible are not mentioned. I have yet to hear a sermon on the sin of wearing clothes woven of two different fibers. But Linsey-Woolsy was clearly a nono in the OT.
-
No, it's my belief that Christians are Christians, due to what they believe,....period. It's what makes them......wait for it......CHRISTIANS ::) And if Christians are supposedly susceptible to believing in the tooth fairy or witchcraft, as you claim, that apparently puts your fella, Obama, right smack in that realm of believing in them as well
-
When I hear someone say I believe in witchcraft because the Bible tells me too, I will believe them.
But not any sooner.
Try not to kill any witches you think you see. I hear it is illegal. Probably because of a Communist plot.
-
When I hear someone say I believe in witchcraft because the Bible tells me too, I will believe them.
But not any sooner.
So then its a bogus attempt to lump those who believe in Christianity into also believing in witch craft. Yet, you made the implication.
Try not to kill any witches you think you see. I hear it is illegal. Probably because of a Communist plot.
And why would I do that? Besides being illegal, its one of the commandments, and has squat to do with communism, Dr Deflection. Here's a hint....unless a witch is actually about to inflict harm, if not death upon my life, or my loved ones, or is casting some mass killing spell, ONLY THEN, would I make any effort to aim center mass, to stop such a deadly thread. Until then, the witch can walk all she wants, right next to those communists, & racists, & bigots, & socialists, & marxists, etc., etc., etc.
-
Christians believe in the Bible.
They require no logical process to do this. Jesus told them to obey God's words
You claim that all Christians believe the same things, buy faith alone, unquestioningly.
Now the Bible says, and I quote. ''Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.''
http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/22-18.htm
Therefore, you, as a Christian, one of those many that all believe unquestioniningly in what the Bible says, must believe that it is your duty to kill witches.
Either you believe this, or you believe that you can choose only the parts you wish to believe. I think the Bible says that is not something you should do.
I mentioned Communists only because of a literary allusion that you must have failed to recognize.
Happy witch hunting! No doubt that if you did as thr Bible says, and killed a witch and were arrested for it, then that would be an instance of Obama's alleged War on Christianity.
-
The bible also makes clear thou shalt not kill. I'm going with that one......until the point where a supposed "witch" is about to try and kill me, or loved one, or a group of folk. Sorry to burst that bubble
-
Well, see that is the problem.The Bible says Kill the Witch in one place and Do not Kill in another.
A rational being Supreme or not should not be giving contradictory commands. But again ans again, that is what the Bible does.
If the Bible mentions witches and demons that cause mental disease, does that mean that witches and demons exist?
It is a good idea that we do not think too much about these imaginary beings.
-
Paul did not welcome gentiles into Christianity earlier than any other, his advocacy or allowing membership without circumcision and obedience to diet and other law harks back to Jesus getting offended with the Pharisee's misuse of the law.
But, if what you want to do is separate Christ from Christianity, then selective understanding of Paul's writings and importance kinda works.
Jesus plainly served Jews first , but did not refuse to serve gentiles , even the reviled Samaritans .
Wasn't it Jesus who told the parable of the good Samaritan?
What do you suppose he meant to say with a story about a goodSamaritan?
I think it interesting to assert that Jesus had a political agenda, and that Paul invented the religion.
So where does Jesus speak or take action politically?
Where exactly does Paul do as Jesus would not?
Point for point it is all easily refutable .
-
Well, see that is the problem.The Bible says Kill the Witch in one place and Do not Kill in another.
Actually, no, it's not a problem at all. Being a Christian has simple fundamentals, that don't require the literal following of practices that took places in Christ's time. A) Christ died for our sins, and is the son of God, and is God. B) Satan exists, and is forever tempting man steer away from God, when not trying to cast doubt. The rest is what one's walk with God is all about.
One could analogize your attempted contradictions as the killing of some "witch" is to some local jurisdiction, as one of the 10 commandments, is to being one of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the living world. The latter kinda trumps the former. Point being, your puny parameters of what must be rational to God, are no different than your scientific mandates of what God must abide by. God has no restrictions, no boundaries. And the kicker is, Christians get it
-
Where exactly does Paul do as Jesus would not?
Jesus said, follow the laws written in the Bible. That includes the one regarding the necessity of male circumcision.
Paul said that this was not necessary, after he himself circumcised Timothy.
Would Jesus have circumcised Timothy?
Or would he have said ''this is not necessary to be a Christian''.
Of course, Jesus did not use the word ''Christian'' ever. e was Yeshua ben Yosef to his followers. ''Christian'' is a Greek work. Paul, not Jesus, actually named the religion.
If the Bible mentions witches and demons, then there must be witched and demons, if you believe that the Bible is the word of God.
I do not think that most Chritians actually believe in witchcraft or demonic possession. It is certainly not greatly feared as it was 500 years ago.
-
I doubt most Christians do as well. What's the primary belief for a Christian however is that A) Christ died for our sins, and is the son of God, and is God. B) Satan exists, and is forever tempting man to steer away from God, when not trying to cast doubt. The rest is what one's walk with God is all about. It's a fairly simple concept, that again, Christians get. Others, obviously not
-
How about demonic possession and witches? Do you believe in those?
Are you one of those ''cafeteria Christians'' that believes only in the parts you like?
It is pretty hard these days to find clothes made of unblended fabric. Even shirts that are 100 percent cotton are often sewn together with threads that contain nylon or some other synthetic. But still, the commandment says, refrain from cloth that is made from more than one fiber. They had to pick linen, wool or cotton or risk the wrath of the Creator.
-
The primary belief for a Christian is that A) Christ died for our sins, and is the son of God, and is God. B) Satan exists, and is forever tempting man to steer away from God, when not trying to cast doubt. The rest is what one's walk with God is all about.
This attempted line of questioning how a Christian has to apply every possible aspect of the Bible reminds me of a rather foul mouthed leftist who claimed that a Christian wasn't a Christian unless they were actively killing gays. Obviously, he wasn't a Christian
-
So, I see you do NOT believe in the entire Bible, just the parts you fancy. You do not fancy witches and demons, so you claim that belief in them is unnecessary. I bet you even wash your hands before eating. Jesus was not into the germ ''theory'' of disease (do we still call it a theory?) The disciples did not bother to wash their hands before dinner, as taught by the Bible and Jewish custom. ere is what the Bible says:
Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23
7:1 Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
7:2 they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.
7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders;
7:4 and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.)
7:5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
7:6 He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’
7:8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”
7:14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand:
7:15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”
7:21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder,
7:22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly.
7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Christian groups run many hospitals, are each and every one would disagree with the Son of God about washing his hands before eating. There is MUCH that can defile your body outside if it gets into you, including bacteria, viruses, poisons and all sorts of toxic stuff. Jesus was clearly WRONG about the importance of washing one's hands.
=============================================
Samaritans were (and are: there are still about 800 left) followers of an Abrahamic religion very similar to Judaism that claim that they are the inheritors of the Hebrew faith, while the Jews who were taken away in exile to Assyria, changed the religion as a result of their exile.
So Samaritans were very similar to Jews. Certainly more so than Greeks, Romans, and Baal worshiping Philistines.
-
Again, missing the point...on purpose I'm sure. It's not about microanalysing the bible, or even "belief" in the bible, its about the belief in God. The Bible is merely God speaking to us. Being a Christian is simple....a belief that A) Christ died for our sins, and is the son of God, and is God. B) Satan exists, and is forever tempting man to steer away from God, when not trying to cast doubt. The rest is what one's walk with God is all about.
Christians get this. Others, obviously not
-
So, since Jesus wants us NOT to bother with washing out hands, does Satan favor hand washing or not?
Before you eat, you probably feel a desire to wash your hands.
But now you know that Jesus was against washing one's hands, how can you be sure that the urge to wash your hands does not come from Satan?
I find it strange that Jesus, since he was God, would not be aware that viruses and bacteria are easily spread with the hands by humans. One would expect more from the omniscient Creator God that put the place together, and one assumes, has a perfect memory.
-
One more time.....this isn't about trying to microanalyze the bible. Christianity is about faith, as I already outlined in A) & B) Everything else is based on an individual's walk with God. Jesus had no official position about washing hands that would preclude someone from entering the kingdom of God. A person could be obsessive compulsive and wash their hands after touching every surface they came in contact with, but as long as they believed that Christ died for us, and accepted him as their personal savior.....and made every effort to walk a path pleasing to God, that's all. No massive memory required. Very simple concepts in fact.
Christians get it. Others, obviously not
-
Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23
7:1 Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
7:2 they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.
7:14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand:
7:15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”
7:21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder,
7:22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly.
7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Excellent example of Jesus telling his followers not to be slaves to the law. Perhaps Jesus was aware of germs , he was certainly aware of poison, which can hurt you when ingested. Are you aware that a load of poison and a shovel full of germs do not defile a person? Getting stabbed to death is not defilement . =============================================
Samaritans were (and are: there are still about 800 left) followers of an Abrahamic religion very similar to Judaism that claim that they are the inheritors of the Hebrew faith, while the Jews who were taken away in exile to Assyria, changed the religion as a result of their exile.
So Samaritans were very similar to Jews. Certainly more so than Greeks, Romans, and Baal worshiping Philistines.
Samaritans were reviled and hated, the similarity and common history were just part of the problem. When Jesus discussed the circumstances of life with a Samaritan woman at a well , she was shocked that he wanted water that she would have touched . She tried to discuss with him the points of the law that made Samaritans stand apart , but Jesus did not discuss these fine points of law with her , he discussed with her the state of her soul, and what he had to offer to her.
I don't think Jesus really wanted an opportunity to expound on the better understanding of the law that he as a Jew must have had over a Samaritan.
Jesus had an attitude twards the law , and I don't think you have seen it.
Paul saw Jesus attitude twards the law and had to change his own.
-
Jesus obviously had no clue about the germ theory of disease. I agree that one cannot become immoral because of what he eats. but not getting sick and not getting poisoned are very good reasons for washing one's hands. There are thousands of Christian run hospitals today, and not a one of them would tell a patient not to bother washing his hands.
Jesus lived, as you may know, in a time before toilet paper. The right hand is the eating hand, the lefty hands the wiping hand, and what do you do with your hands when you pray? Think about it.
I imagine we are supposed to think that when Paul circumcised Timothy, it was out of what he thought was necessity. I am sure it was not done for, well, amusement.
Then a while after that, Paul hashed a deal with Peter to make circumcision unnecessary for conversion of pagans to Christianity. Again, Paul thought that he was doing the right thing by acting in the opposite manner.
Of course, the problem was that pagan men did not think that Christianity was worth getting circumcised for.Or perhaps they just did not want Paul handling and knifing their tallywhackers. I know I would not have volunteered for either. But to win converts, you had to get the men, because the women and the children and the slaves followed the men into the religion.
One must admit that Paul was not consistent. It appears as though he changed his mind out of expediency.
-
Paul had visions , and communication from Jesus.
These events do not make any sense at all with these factors left out.
-
Yeah, sure. Paul communicated with of and Jesus telepathically.
The point is that Jesus said that there was no need for anyone to wash their hands before eating. Keep in mind that Jesus did not have a fork a spoon or chopsticks, either. The custom was to just stick your hand into the couscous and stuff it into your mouth.
It is rather upsetting to think that you are entrusting your soul to someone who would be fired by McDonald's for improper hygiene any way you look at it. Excuses can be made for disobeying some of the silly Kosher laws, but there were certainly germs all over the place in Galilee, and eating them was no more a healthy practice then than it is now.
If Jesus is God and God is omniscient, then Jesus should know about bacteria. Hell, God CREATED bacteria: leprosy, smallpox, TB, cholera, whooping cough diphtheria ebola, syphilis, river blindness, malaria ye;lo fever bubonic plague. They have never been blamed on Satan.
And I agree: if you do not assume that Jesus and Paul were in some manner communicating, then it does not make sense. That is why it makes no sense to me. Other than to conclude that Paul took what he liked about Jesus, merged it into aspects of other popular religions, like Mithraism and focused his efforts on pagans, because they were easier marks than Jews. I am sure Paul THOUGHT he was sincerely doing the Lord's work, just as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, and the Jehovah's Witness people that come to my door every so often.
-
It all makes sense if you are accepting .
If you reject the miraculous , you don't need to explain it otherwise.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15&version=LEB
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ has not been raised either. 14 But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. 15 And also we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if after all, then, the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised either. 17 But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is empty; you are still in your sins. 18 And as a further result, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have put our hope[c] in Christ in this life only, we are of all people most pitiable.
Paul admits as much himself doesn't he?
Did he come up with this logic , and give his life to a ministry he thought pitiable?
I don't see a search for ulterior motives as reasonable, nor crediting the success of Christianity to the ravings of a deluded preacher.
If God coordinated this , it is not hard to explain, without God it is just a good yarn with a long chain of unlikely events.
-
It all makes sense if you are accepting .
BINGO
-
So I should believe anything anyone who seems sincere says so long as I can't think of an ulterior motive for his belief?
I find that seriously illogical.
I should also follow Mohammad, Joseph Smith, William Miller, Elijah Mohammad, Sun Myung Moon, maybe even Jim Jones as well. What ulterior motive woudl Louis Farrakhan have? He is always smiling.
Since I can see no reason why Jesus might have an ulterior motive for telling me not to wash my hands before eating, I should follow that advice. Really???
If I am willing to accept illogical people saying illogical stuff that seems like nonsense toi be, then it all makes sense.
REALLY?
There is no bingo in that. No bingo, no bongo, no go.
I suspect both of you still wash your hands before you eat, by the way. But WHY?
-
Here's the kicker......you can follow ANYONE you like. Plane nailed it, as I've also been referencing as well....Christians get it. And the more you opine how much Plane's point wasn't spot on, demonstrates all the more just how much it was 8) Thank you for the validation
-
If God (or Jesus) took such a personal role in communicating with Paul, then where was God when Mohammad came along, claiming that Jesus was just another prophet, and a lesser one than Mohammad, and that the doctrine of the Trinity was nonsense? One would imagine that all it would have taken would have been to have afflicted Mo with a stutter or the voice of a little girl; or something very minor to prevent Islam from coming along and converting much of the territory that Paul spent so much time converting.
If God wanted to spread Christianity c. 70 AD, then why did he allow Mohammad to eradicate it c. 620 AD? ow does that even make sense. Many of those churches Paul wrote to are now in Muslim territory, including Tarsus itself.
This is not ''microanalyzing'' These are clearly valid questions. Just like the Jesus hand washing remark. Jesus was (a) God and microbes and still said dumb shit for effect, or (b) ignorant of germs and how they spread disease. If Jesus flicked a booger in your burger, would you eat it anyway? Think about it.
I realize that the traditional Christian response is to get all glassy-eyed and saying ''It is all part of the Lord's Divine Plan that we are far too sinful and unworthy to question.''
But any thinking person knows that is just bullshit and really means ''It hurts me to think.''
-
And one more time....you don't get to set the parameters of how God must act, or who he must talk to ::) You obviously don't get it, so why burn up what neurons you still have in chasing your predetermined ghost?
-
The actions that you are attribute to God are those of an insane mental cripple.
If I cannot conceive of God properly, then whose fault is that? My brain was created by God, or so you say.
The fact is that you are incapable of explaining the zillion contradictions in your array of fairy tales and telling me that I cannot imagine the motives of the fairies that told them.
Of course, God did not write the Bible. The description given of God is defective unless God himself is defective.
-
Lol....you answered your own question. God created your brain, for you to make up your own mind. Any extracurricular influence on his part, removes the entire element of faith. Christians get it. You obviously have chosen otherwise
-
You make no sense at all.
Most likely, you are a believer because Mommy and Daddy told you what to believe when you were incapable of reason. Your mind developed with the inability to reason on such matters as God and religion and mine did not.
So do you think that Satan actually caused Charles Darwin to dream up Evolution? That is what Ben Carson says he suspects.
Not unsurprisingly, it is the Seventh Day Adventist official position. Little Ben was brainwashed before his brain could reason.
There is a reason Jesus said this: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:14)
I think that Lenin and Mao said the same thing about educating the Young Pioneers, and of course, Hitler Youth also said 'get them while they are young (and incapable of reason).
The inability to reason about everything is a deliberate trait of immaturity.
-
What I think is irrelevant to you. The point remains that if someone claims to be a Christian, than the foundation to that belief is that Jesus is both the son of God, and is God.....and that Satan is forever attempting to cast doubt and influence one's ways to be un-Godly. He has to work overtime on Christians, while folks like yourself make his job a literal vacation
-
Only gods are godly, by definition. Dogs are doggish and cats are catty and fish are fishy. I am human, so I am humane, and occasionally humanitarian.
So did Satan really cause Darwin to dream up Evolution, as Carson suggests? You have yet to answer the question.
So Jesus is his own father. Was he always his own father, or only since the affair with Mary?
The general gist of the thing is that there was just God the father until Mary got pregnant. Some say the Holy Ghost did it, but not everyone agrees.
The Holy Ghost did not make an appearance until the New Testament
So there was just One and then there were Three.
I am curious: did Satan plant the idea of Evolution in Darwin's head?
God supposedly does not plant ideas in people's heads unless he gets the urge to do it.
It sounds a lot like magic, doesn't it?
-
And only humans are human by definition...and so on and so on. Satan does, whatever Satan does. His strength is casting doubt and deception. Only God (& Satan) know how Satan impacted Darwin. It's safe to assume, FROM A CHRISTIAN STANDPOINT, that Satan likely steered Darwin in whatever way was contrary to God's wishes
The rest of your literal puny human card grasp of Christ is, shall we say....pleasing to Satan's eyes
-
So now you know what pleases the Devil.
I cannot give my opinion about God's apparently wacky behavior, but you know that I am pleasing the Devil.
It seems to me that Darwin was some form of believer all his life. But he was a scientists and he saw the world as a scientist has to see the world, and he drew conclusions from what he saw. It is pretty clear that the Universe is not six thousand years old, that there are thousands of creatures who once lived on this planet that have gone extinct, and that men have had a dandy time fiddling with the chromosomes of dogs, cats, chickens, turkeys and all sorts of other livestock so that they will serve out purposes. Dog breeders, horse breeders and pig breeders and others had been adapting animals to their specific desires since the times of the Romans. Perhaps Satan loves them as well. God designed wolves, and is probably unhappy with men changing them into Chihuahuas, poodles, collies and Corgis.
I wonder what Carson says about this sort of deliberately unnatural selection.
-
ALL Christians know what pleases the devil. Anything & everything that displeases God. It isn't rocket science ::)
And no one claimed you can't give a damn opinion, about ANYTHING be it God or Sushi. It's just often proven to be wrong, but no has claimed you can't peddle it
-
So where do you stand on washing your hands before dinner: are you for hygiene and cleanliness or with Jesus?
Seriously, why would an all knowing entity claim that washing your hands was not a good idea?
Of course, the average Jew in Judea would not have heard about germs, but hell, God INVENTED germs.
-
My washing my hands has nothing to do with my faith in Christ. But yes, God created everything, including germs, diseases, and all sorts of natural nasties
-
I always find it baffling that people whose homes are blown away by hurricanes and tornadoes tend to thank God for not blowing them away as well.
Jesus seems to have confused spiritual defilement with disease. Of course all disease was incorrectly attributed to spiritual stuff back then.
-
I always find it baffling that people whose homes are blown away by hurricanes and tornadoes tend to thank God for not blowing them away as well.
Jesus seems to have confused spiritual defilement with disease. Of course all disease was incorrectly attributed to spiritual stuff back then.
No.
Do you think that the accusing Pharisee was concerned with pathogens?
The confusion is all on our end.
I do consider it possible that Jesus understood Germs better than we do yet, but this was not the subject of this conversation as it was recorded.
One of the things in the law of Moses is instructions for using latrines when camping, keeping the camp clean.
This was imperfectly understood until recently , many of the casualties of the civil war were communicable diseases.
Or do we understand perfectly now?
Probably not.
Following the instructions for use of latrines would have saved many lives, and probably did, without any understanding of why, or even any realization that there was an advantage to the practice.
What scriptures we ought to be following now , but science has not yet discovered the reason , we can only guess.
-
The simple truth behind faith in God, is that God won't allow anything greater than what someone can handle
-
The simple truth behind faith in God, is that God won't allow anything greater than what someone can handle.
By definition if there any survivors, God had graciously spared them.
If it is a mass extermination, as occurred with the Mandan people in the 1830's, or the mass extermination ordered by God of Malekites and other original inhabitants of Canaan, well that was God's will as well. God was displeased with Malekites and Mandans, and the Anasazi pueblo dwellers of the Southwest. Or the people of the Roman City of Pompeii, burned to a crisp when Vesuvius erupted. Was the Lisbon Earthquake on All Saints' Day in 1755, or the Holocaust a bit too excessive or harsh?Nawww, it was all ''God's Will''. Maybe in the long run it was good for all those Portuguese and Jews to die. It was just a bit of Divine weeding and culling.
I don't blame God for this attitude it is a peculiar form of human stupidity.
The reality is that entire populations have been destroyed by natural calamities.
There is no reason why hurricanes have to make a landfall. Most of this planet is covered by water. But somehow, all natural disasters are God's plan and people still prefer to see it as a personal blessing when God has merely destroyed their home and business and spared them. Of course, if they had not been spared, they would not be around to quote.
-
The simple truth behind faith in God, is that God won't allow anything greater than what someone can handle.
By definition if there any survivors, God had graciously spared them.
God spares every life....as in it wasn't their time. And NO, you don't get to decide when that time is. If you were to throw yourself off the Empire State building, and it was your time, God would spare your life. However, if you did decide to do that, God would likely allow you your choice to end your life.
Whatever happens, happens. We choose our direction, and as Christians we know that God wouldn't put us into a situation he knew we can't handle. It's up to us to handle it though. Christians get it. Others obviously don't
-
So we supposedly have free will, but we cannot actually even commit suicide unless God wills it?
You appear to have a very confused concept of free will.
Everybody dies. But suicide is always an option.
God seems to spare a lot more people who overdose drugs than use a gun.
God can prevent a volcanic explosion, a hurricane, an earthquake if he wants to, those affected would seem to have less free will about staying alive than others who have decided to live in places where such disasters never happen.
-
You've already burned enough neurons on a concept you simply can't grasp. In fact, if you had spent even a 1/4 of these neurons on explaining how one would legally classify a "lazy mass shooter" with a "crazy mass shooter", so we could better figure out how to keep firearms out of their hands, we might have made some progress, vs this black hole effort in trying to debunk a faith that by definition can never be debunked, since it isn't based on anything humanly scientific
But by all means, knock your socks off. I've decided to get off your merry-go-round
-
All faith is eminently debunkable. It is just that in some cases it is possible to debunk it with facts, and in others the facts are unavailable.
The Book of Revelations says that in the final days 'the stars will fall from the Heavens'.
Well, no, they won't. Maybe it could LOOK that way, but we know for a fact that Betelgeuse, Vega and Polaris are not going to fall from the sky into Earth.
This is because we know that they are (1) very, very far away, thousands of light years away, actually, and (2) they are headed AWAY from us, and (3) if any of the stars or other heavenly object that we can see in the night sky were to fall to Earth, that would be the end of Planet Earth. A second object would merely whiz through the cloud of rubble that once was Earth. A plural shower of stars is an impossibility.
Of course, a METEOR shower is possible, but as we know, meteors are not stars.
So we can prove that faith in that sentence of the Book of Revelations is simply bunk. This diminishes the credulity that any sane person would have in the rest of that Book of what appears to be mostly nonsense.