Hi Peter,

From an atheist's point of view, of course the depiction of a god by Christians and the depiction of a god by Muslims are dramatically different, and those depictions, illusions as they may be, are powerful exemplars of the drastic differences in the ethical basis of each religion.

Even an atheist such as myself can understand that the ethical intentions of Christianity are vastly superior to those of Islam: what counts as good or bad ? What is exemplary behaviour ? What is the believer's place in a very mixed world ? Who is your brother or sister ? Overall, what is the general tenor of a contemporary believer's relationship to other people - to love or to conquer ?

Christianity and Islam deal with these sorts of questions in drastically different ways. And in such different ways that reconciliation is ultimately inconceivable. Even I can see that.

And we have to have the courage to call it like it is: Islam instructs that, ultimately, the population of the entire world (since it is perceived to belong to Allah) must be brought into submission, surrender, or be exterminated.

Christianity, at least in its more modern forms, has a far more indulgent, live-and-let-live, approach, a recognition that people have their own views and beliefs, that persuasion should be the means of bringing them into the light rather than the sword or bomb.

Far be it for me to defend Christianity - obviously the Catholic Church has a long way to go but we don't see priests these days burning witches or throwing gays off the top of buildings, or Jehovah's Witnesses randomly butchering old ladies on their home-visits. I can't recall the last time I heard of a Mormon beheading anybody or machine-gunning children. Let us know when that happens.

Is it utterly outlandish to think it could ? Then, if there is ever going to be any coming together, under 'the same god', then I would far, far rather that they do so under the banner of current Christian ethics than the current barbarities of orthodox Islam.

Joe

Says who? You? And apart from endless hearsay and quite massive plagiarism! There are no eyewitness accounts nor physical evidence for this claim?

Why even the exodus from egypt to the promised land by the "chosen people" and the resultant commandments written on stone by the hand of God is being challenged by the revealed archaeological evidence?

And as such proves that the authors of so called holy text were consummate story tellers?

And according to some of those stories the man you called God, promised that those who followed, would perform even more remarkable miracles than he did, and just by the laying on of hands and being used as a CHOSEN instrument of God! [It is not I that does these things but the father in me!]

Now that is evidence Peter!

And nowhere apart from the placebo effect do I see any evidence of this happening.

Yes there is evil at work in this world; and given an evil incarnate, one would hope that there are counterbalancing angels lined up against it?

We Christians have a set of beliefs and prophesies, if you will, borrowed from many diverse belief systems.

Thus we get the holy trinity from the druids, The fourteen commandments and a promised messiah from the jewish tradition.

And quite clearly an embellished text by John a Jewish scholar, so as to provide the missing messianic elements, like walking on water, that until John, were missing from this, [man made] well after the event record/concoction?

Proving as nothing else can, that in order to give credence to a theoretical concept, one needs just a little more than hearsay and or legend.

That said, I for one cannot look at the night sky and dismiss divine intelligence and a creator!

However I don't check in my brain with the hat and coat, when I enter an august establishment.

Truly truly Peter, unexamined life is not worth living, nor is an unexamined belief system worth following; particularly with fanatical cannot err, blind faith, and therefore little more than a cult!?
Rhrosty.

Congratulations, Rhrosty,

Five full stops. A new record. Keep up the good work.

Well said Rhosty. At least he addressed the article, unlike yourself Calwest.

"Christians can have this discussion because we know that in the grace of God all people exist as human souls before God. Thus religious belief may be discussed without it leading to prejudice and persecution."

You surely must be joking Mr. Sellick? From what I have seen, Christians are no better and no worse at 'discussing' religion without getting somewhat upset with others that don't agree with them , than any other person.

The Christian fundamentalists certainly don't like being any argument against their beliefs, that's for sure! If you dare to consider abortion as a woman's right to choose, for instance, well you can expect to be persecuted at the very least, if not shot dead for those actions or beliefs. The US Tea Party crazies are a case in question.

No one has ever been able to prove they have seen a God of any sort, let alone one with a human face. It always amuses me that the many fictitious depictions of the Christian god's face show a white male. That's not surprising though really, given it was a group of white males who wrote the fictitious bible.

Why not a black face? Why not a woman?
I prefer to think of it as a sort of Mother Earth, if at all.....

Hi Suse,

Of course most sensible people believe that there never have been any gods.

But I'll stick by what I wrote bove:

"Far be it for me to defend Christianity - obviously the Catholic Church has a long way to go but we don't see priests these days burning witches or throwing gays off the top of buildings, or Jehovah's Witnesses randomly butchering old ladies on their home-visits. I can't recall the last time I heard of a Mormon beheading anybody or machine-gunning children. Let us know when that happens.

"Is it utterly outlandish to think it could ? Then, if there is ever going to be any coming together, under 'the same god', then I would far, far rather that they do so under the banner of current Christian ethics than the current barbarities of orthodox Islam."

Of course, that's hardly likely to happen: we're likely to become LESS religious as time passes. So the only option, incredibly difficult as it may turn out to be, is for Muslims to force through the total reform of their belief system, and adopt a more human live-and-let-live approach, in order to co-exist with others, including us non-believers.

In other words, to recognise the rights of all people to believe what they like so long as it does not involve any threat or compulsion exerted against others.

What do you reckon ?

Joe

Peter Sellick: we are all recipients of the grace of God even though we know it not. This is a better basis for tolerance than willed blindness to religious difference because it has the capacity to lead to real understanding.

Now all you have to do Peter is go to Syria & have a meaningful dialogue with the Leaders of ISIS. I'm sure they will give you an understandingly mindful hearing, then lop your head off. ;-)

On the God or Gods. Fact is, there is no God or Gods. I have no proof of that, just as anyone else has no proof that there is. It all relies on Faith in a Belief. Then there has to be a Dogma to go along with that Belief. Now, aren't there some doozy Beliefs & Dogmas. Along with these Dogmas is a Penalty System of Punishments if you fail to adhere to those Dogmas. Why Punishments. Control, that's why.

So what the Beliefs in a God or Gods comes down to is Control of the masses.

Control is managed either by Love or Fear. The Love part sounds great on the surface until you dip your head under the waters only to find that Love is conditional on Fear.

Fear is what drives the World. Fear God, Fear Rulers, Fear Bosses, Fear Wife or Husband, Fear of missing out, Fear of dying, Fear of not having something better than everyone else.

All Advertising is based on Fear & so are Religions.

The trick is not to fall for it.

My bet. We'll never hear from Peter.

Another article which shows how some creations of the human mind differ from other creations of the human mind. Of course the imaginary being that Peter accepts is vastly superior to the imaginary beings that some other people accept. Obviously Santa Claus has it all over the tooth fairy, and humanoid Gods are better than non-humanoid Gods.

God has many human faces:

Every event is an event in God as any one of us is of the substance of God. Jesus was simply one of the few who were constantly and fully aware of this and one can only be saved by realising this same Truth.

It does however require both effort and grace to wake to this realisation.

Yutsie": and one can only be saved by realising this same Truth.

Saved from what/which truth. A Hell. A human Invention. A for ever reincarnation something else, Hmmm, I can go along with that. One disintegrates in the ground or is burnt to ash where one is broken down into the Basic Elements, Then is taken up by grass which is eaten by a cow, which is eaten by a Human, which is turned into an egg or sperm & becomes another human, or a frog, etc., etc. Hmmm where have I heard that before. Oh, I know, Harry Neilsens "The Point."

The Point is, some people believe in A God or Gods. It's a belief that takes Faith. That doesn't make it a Truth. One persons Truth may not be another persons Truth. In fact some peoples Truths have other people rolling in the aisles with laughter & vica Versa.

God has different face that human beings cant see it. Because he lives in heaven we cant see him until we finally die. And he will pass judgement on how we were when we were alive. If we were bad, no heaven, and if we are good then we live in heaven and happy for ever.

People who say God not there thats Ok. People who say God is there thats OK as well. People who believe in God will be allowed to be with him if we lived a good life. If we are bad he will not let us be with him. Don't believe, your problem. Do believe, you will meet him when you die and you'll be very happy for ever. Your choice?

I Misangthrope,

All gods are illusions, invented by people. We live on this earth for one life, then we die, forever. We are brought into the world by our wonderful mothers, and if we are lucky we are able to say good-bye to our children and grandchildren. So while we are here, we do what we can for our fellow human beings, enjoy ourselves as much as we can within that guideline, then the worms get us.

Live life to the full while we are here, the one life we are all entitled to, and then say good-bye; OR wait throughout our one and only life, in the hope of going somewhere else 'afterwards'. Your choice.

Joe

Misanthrope: Don't believe, your problem. Do believe, you will meet him when you die and you'll be very happy for ever.

& what are we all supposed to do for the next Quintazillion years plus. Dance around in a white robe looking at one person & singing "For he's a jolly good fellow." ? Is that your Idea of being happy? It's my idea of being bored out of my white sheet for a Quantizillion years.

Yep there are some areas that require faith when following Christ. Not nearly as much though as the idiotic secularist dogmas which have created massive problems in society and leave the secularist dumb enough to ask why. After destroying the natural family unit they wonder why we have so much domestic violence, teen suicide, rape, murder etc. Oh that's right more money will solve these problems just ask the indigeneous. Secularist are unable to comprehend what the Koran says so are hopelessly clueless to the bible. Instead they have fools lecturing who can't even keep a marriage vow. Oh that's right the dogma means no absolutes unless being used to criticise someone they hate. Secularist are experts at twisting words and are blind enough to think they are rational. Just look at the girls on the abc spewing out their hatred and you will know what I mean.

Well it beats the 7 hells of Islam. You don't want the virgins and wine in heaven no. 3 ? Or maybe 5 , but Jesus in is no. 4 they say.
Islam rocks if your stomach, liver and genitals don't wear out.

Hi runner,

Perhaps you could be partially right, but I'm sure there are atheists like me who are passionately interested in this world and how to improve it for the most down-trodden, how to relieve misery, without doing any further damage or sacrificing innocent people to some lofty goal. Some of us secularists like people, I have to say I get a kick out of just watching people, especially women, nature's most wonderful creation, and seeing people enjoying each other's company and hearing the laughter of children.

I don't want to do anybody any harm, unless they want to harm me: I'm not so sure about turning the other cheek, runner. But most certainly, religious principles which counsel restraint are vastly superior to those others which demand revenge, brutal retaliation, even for imagined wrongs, and whose god has been constructed as some sort of sadistic pervert - which says a great deal about that religion and its total lack of genuine morality, in its lust for power.

Cheers,

Joe

//God has a human face//

So does Odin. Why don't your worship Odin, Peter?

What you seem to be saying Loudmouth is that you agree with the golden rule do unto others as you would want done to you. This was a very foreign concept before Jesus spoke these words. The further we have got away from His influence and teachings as a society the more self centred, irrational and violent we have become. Call me old fashioned or what but I loved this country when you could leave your doors unlocked, the local coppers would boot you up the a** when you misbehaved and you were not afraid to stop and help a broken down motorist. And yes it was great when women were women and men men. Now many women see themselves as perpetual vicitms and many men are by and large effeminate. The world being created now by secularism is doomed for failure and islamist know it. The great void created by secularism is being filled with violent groups from the left and right. I have several drug families in my street. How about u?

Peter: //God has a human face//

Does it. Wasn't it Hemingway that said that, "Man created God in his own image." This I believe. To believe that God looks or is human is the height of arrogance.

Except if you are Hindu, then God can be an Elephant, Cow, Monkey, Snake & some girly/guy that held his breath too long & turned blue.

runner: idiotic secularist dogmas which have created massive problems in society.

Now that's what I call arrogance. To believe all the Worlds ill are caused by Secularists. Last time I looked & from my reading of History, I find that all the Worlds ills have been caused by Religionists of one kind or another. Nothing has changed. All religions are crying peace while bashing the living daylights out of one another.

Religion is like looking for a black cat that isn't there, in a dark room & crying, "I've found it."

runner wrote: "What you seem to be saying Loudmouth is that you agree with the golden rule do unto others as you would want done to you. This was a very foreign concept before Jesus spoke these words."

Dear runner,

That is complete nonsense. The Golden Rule was around long before Jesus hit the scene. He was not a Christian but a Jew who recycled bits from the Jewish Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

"The Golden Rule appears in the following Biblical verse: "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18)"

The Golden Rule was around before the Jewish Bible was written:

"Possibly the earliest affirmation of reciprocity reflecting the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."

The Golden Rule is common to many ethical systems. Jesus was just one of many people who said more or less the same thing. He neither invented love, the Golden Rule nor the wheel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule tells about it.

david f

take off your Christophobic glasses and stop quoting secular dogma

'Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions. However, the texts for Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, cited above, were all written between 500 and 400 BC, at the earliest. Jesus takes the Golden Rule from Leviticus, written about 1450 BC. So, Jesus’ source for the Golden Rule predates the “silver rule” by about 1,000 years. Who “borrowed” from whom?

Dear runner,

It was you who claimed that Jesus invented the Golden Rule. That was completely false. There is no reason to think that anyone borrowed the Golden Rule from anyone. It's a good way to live, and people got the idea independently.

however, you wrote: "This was a very foreign concept before Jesus spoke these words."

That statement is false. You also wrote: "take off your Christophobic glasses and stop quoting secular dogma"

The above is an odd statement since I cited NO secular sources. I don't think you have the least idea what the word, secular, means. I cited only religious sources. Your superstition is not the only superstition.

The Spiritual Gospel of Saint Jesus of Galilee retold:
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« At Christmas the Church proclaims that God has a human face »
.

That’s correct, Peter. God is whatever the Church decides to make him. In addition to giving him a human face, as you note a little further in your article this month, it also proclaims that he is a “three-in-one” homo-sexual entity - father, son and holy ghost.

Face masks are probably one of the oldest cultural traditions of humanity. In 2003, BBC News, quoting an article published in the journal Antiquity, announced that a mask 35,000 years-old had been found on the banks of the Loire river in France.

The BBC reporter noted that the 77,000 year-old engraved ochre pieces found in the Blombos Cave in South Africa are probably the oldest example of modern human art generally accepted by the scientific community, though some anthropologists consider that certain rock objects 200,000 years-old may also have been sculptured by primitive artists :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm
.

The concept of an anthropomorphic deity is unique to Christianity among the three principal Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Both Judaism and Islam reject an anthropomorphic deity, believing that God is beyond human comprehension. Neither Yahweh nor Allah has a face nor anything else human for that matter.

The word mask derives from the Middle French word “masque” with which, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it was originally identical, and from which, not surprisingly, both the French and English word “masquerade” derives.

Presumably, the Christian "god" also has a heart, though I, personally, have seen no evidence of this to date.

.

Congratulations Calwest in managing to count as far as five; and quite remarkable for someone of your intellectual capacity.

I hear Graham has an opening for a volunteer/unpaid assistant editor and someone able to count five full stops as a feat of intellectual endurance/acumen, must be in high demand............
Rhrosty.
P.S. Now be a good boy an count the full stops in this one, just to enhance/engage/work on your considerable mental faculties/prove your former effort wasn't a fluke.

"Presumably, the Christian "god" also has a heart, though I, personally, have seen no evidence of this to date."
If he caused humanity to exist and if humans have an alleged heart or metaphoric heart motivation , and if the census is vaguely close to scientific accuracy and if perception of humanity existing is not illusion , then just maybe there are 6-8 billion little tickers rattling away through the cholesterol, alcohol and benzol. More on the way.

Loudmouth.
Your contribution to this thread has been interesting. It occurs to me that the understanding of God as triune, dispenses with the undifferentiated monotheism that is at the basis of your atheism. This is something that I continually fail to get across and is a barrier to any useful theological discussion. It is as if many cling to an understanding of god that is not Christian in order to maintain their opposition. Atheism may seem like firm ground until we really come to grips with the Christian understanding of God. To let go of atheism is to be exposed to the full force of what the Church has been saying for centuries in its better moments.

Loudmouth is to smart to be an atheist. Agnostic yes atheist no. Most atheist at least here on olo spend much energy in misrepresenting, denying and cursing the God they claim not to believe in. They know it is Him they will face one day despite their tantrums.

Dear Sells,

The understanding of the nature of God is not really a real question. In "The Jesus Wars" Philip Jenkins writes of the fifth century struggles that determined the Christian understanding of deity. It is a fascinating book and makes the case the Christian understanding of God was determined by the faction that could bring the most physical force in putting forth their viewpoint.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that God is anything more than a creation of the human mind. There is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God, the Jewish God, The Muslim God, Thor, Jupiter, Zeus etc. Some give children the myths of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Such myths may make their childhood more pleasant. However, it also can build distrust when a child realises that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are nothing but lies. I regard belief in a deity of any sort as an instance of immaturity. I don't believe it is good for an adult to have the outlook of a child. I can understand Sells holding onto the myth of deity. As an Anglican deacon it is a large part of his life. However, I wish others would simply grow up and put away childish beliefs.

Hi Runner,

You suggest that I'm too smart to be an atheist. You over-estimate me, I AM an atheist. So your premise is false, unless you re-phrase it to: "Loudmouth is dumb enough to be an atheist". Yeah, that should do it.

But I think you are right to an extent when you suggest that many of the children on OLO "spend much energy in misrepresenting, denying and cursing the God they claim not to believe in. They know it is Him they will face one day despite their tantrums." I agree, that many can't seem to get over some half-witted either-or schema that one is either right (and therefore with them), or wrong (and therefore some sort of bible-basher). No other discussion required.

I suggest to them that there is no god. No, no, there isn't. Never has been. So why go on and on and on and on and on about it as if it's the only dog you've got to kick ? Try to get beyond it and see what other explanations may be possible. It's a complex world, and none of us has time for childish nya-nya.

Joe

runner,

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Joe,

This is a good question, and one I’ve answered a few times in great detail.

<<...there is no god ... So why go on and on and on and on and on about it...?>>

The short answer is because some people believe that a god does exist. Beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. These people don’t live in a vacuum. While you’ll rarely ever reach theists, fence-sitting onlookers will often be persuaded by good arguments. The more mobilisation against bad ideas we can create, the more reluctant those with bad ideas will be to voice them and the less harm they will do.

How much mobilisation would that be? We saw Lord Hitler, Lenin and Mao in glory and majesty, now Kim Jong un and almost Czar Putin.
Hell.

runner: you suggest that many of the children on OLO "spend much energy in misrepresenting, denying and cursing the God they claim not to believe in. They know it is Him they will face one day despite their tantrums."

I don't remember anyone cursing or misrepresenting God on here. Denying? yes, of course. & as far as we'll face him one day, I doubt it as there is nothing to face.

Hey AJ, Who ya gunna sue this time? Haven't heard from you for a while, been defending some poor terrorist?

Hmmm... hears a Question for you all. If the Devil has horns & Moses had horns. Was Moses the Devil? ;-)

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone would pull the Argument from Extremes fallacy. Well done.

Yes, let's do nothing because Hitler is always the end result.

The q. is "mobilisation". As WWI did not end all wars so mobilising mass rejection will not end extreme allegiances and may well be extremism itself.

//Moses had horns//

Moses had horns? Well that's a new one. Had to google it. Turns out it's just a mistranslation from the Hebrew. How disappointing. I do like the horny Moses statue though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)

The Devil is also not mentioned as having horns anywhere in the Bible. About the clearest descriptions of his physical appearance are given in Revelations, where he is described as a dragon or serpent.

If the Devil doesn't have horns and runner doesn't have horns is runner the Devil?

No the devil in Revelation is the serpent , the dragon who has horns.
teeth , claws the whole deal.

Hmmm...I always thought the mythical devil had horns too, just like God is depicted as an old bearded white man. When no one has ever seen either, I can only believe that these two descriptions are made up.

I read somewhere that the horns were originally thought to adorn the demons of the dreaded pagan times, when no one had a bible to tell them what to believe.
It seems now that these poor 'demons' were actually poor unfortunate mere humans, who simply had mental health disorders.
There are pictures of 'satan' with horns in a 14th century Arabic text (Wikipedia) so maybe the Christians borrowed the horned look from the Muslims?

Amazingly, mankind originally managed to successfully populate this world without bibles or other fictitious books to tell them who or what to worship or how to behave.
Funny that....maybe we can do it again?

Hi Suse,

The powers that be create 'God' in their own image, Suse :) - and not just how he is supposed to look but how he is supposed to act as well, i.e. like a tyrant or bully: check out the last couple of pages of the Book of Job where 'God' really throws his weight around - what he says and does there will remind you of your worst bosses.

The Greek god Pan of course was horned, and if not a symbol of evil, at least a symbol of illicit hanky-panky, random rogering and good rollicking fun generally. Probably Norman Lindsay drew himself as Pan, and vice versa.

Thankfully, the west has been going through the long and painful process of an Enlightenment, which includes a realisation that - as you say - we don't need gods. But we have to be careful not to substitute some other x factor for a god, and then sit back and stop thinking. Nothing will ever save us from the need to think about what we are doing and where we are going and how.

Cheers,

Joe

Runner, you still wrongly equate secularism with antheism. Secularists are not necessarily atheists. Some are priests and bishops. They are simply people who believe that the state and the churches should be separate, that the state should not interfere in the way religions govern themselves and that the religions should not interfere in the way the state governs itself.

And you blunder on blindly believing that secularism gives rise to rape, teenage pregnancy, murder and every other evil you can think of when the opposite is the case. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the countries with the lowest rates of these social ills are the strongly secularist ones such as the Scandinavians and Japan while the countries with the worst rates are the strongly religious ones like the USA. Furthermore, within the US, the states with the highest rates of these social ills are the religious ones.

These are simple, easily verifiable facts. Why do you continue to blind yourself to the obvious?

It could be questioned whether the altar-boy Hitler and seminarian Stalin became secular or religious. Is violent anti-religion a form of religion?
Facts on Sweden : highest rape rate .This reporting method was adjusted:

"An EU-wide survey on sexual violence against women, published the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2014, showed Sweden was only third highest, below Denmark and Finland[241] and a previous assessment by Brå have placed Sweden at an average level among European nations."

nicknamenick: "An EU-wide survey on sexual violence against women, published the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2014, showed Sweden was only third highest, below Denmark and Finland[241] and a previous assessment by Brå have placed Sweden at an average level among European nations."

& now these figures are expected to go up at a great rate, due to the sudden migration of moslems into Europe.

I read recently that there has an increase of rapes on Europeans women in Europe over the last 10 years. They have been committed by moslem men. Taking their lust out on "uncovered meat" I imagine.

Hey Jayb, since when have I ever sued anyone or defended a terrorist? And what would it have to do with the current topic even if I had? You’re a typical brainless bully from the military. They like ‘em dumb there.

nicknamenick,

So now you’re going to use the Slippery Slope fallacy? There are many secular organisations doing a lot to fight Christian lobby groups like the ACL, and I don’t see any risk of a new ‘final solution’.

How about I just mention Dawkins’ more palatable “consciousness raising”? Either way, my point is still valid.

AJ
Not a slippery slope but religion can be expressed as Nazism or communism. Humans need some structure.
It's just that facts are not suited to you. Scandinavia has high rates.
Japan's rape rate is recorded down for cultural reasons which give police and judicial rejection of sex abuse reports. The true figure is 10 times up , at 1.2%. The secular Japanese are similar to religious Muslims in abusing women.

One for you AJ.

Moses disappeared for forty days & came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments under his arm. The first thing he sees is some people worshipping Baal. So, he tells his brother to go & kill them all. Now considering he hasn't told anyone about the new Laws. You shall not worship false Gods & Thou shall kill etc. Just Who committed the first Sin?

Dear Jayb,

The people worshipped a golden calf which they made - not Baal.

Now according to Exodus 20, the people have already heard it all directly from God, 40 days earlier, they just didn't have it in writing yet:

1) And God spake all these words, saying,
2-17) ... the ten commandments ...
18) And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
19) And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
20) And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
21) And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
22) And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

Now according to verse 19, they already heard the ten commandments, they just didn't want to hear any more... and there was much more indeed, which God told Moses on the mountain, but that much they already heard. Also, the "you" in verse 22 is a plural "you" (which is missed in the English translation).

'There are pictures of 'satan' with horns in a 14th century Arabic text (Wikipedia) so maybe the Christians borrowed the horned look from the Muslims?'
The goodies had horns , such as the gods Teshub and Baal 4000 years ago. Viking and Celt ceremonial helmets had horns and Alexander wore ram horns when he was Great at slaughtering baddies who weren't Greek or Macedonian . Good horns are on the Hornet F-18 in NSW named for Wales which has a dragon flag.

Yutsie: Now according to Exodus 20, the people have already heard it all directly from God, 40 days earlier, they just didn't have it in writing yet:

No that's not correct. The God didn't speak directly to the people. He spoke to Moses & Arron up on the Mountain.

Appart from that there is nowhere where God says, "Kill anyone who does worship strange Gods." God did command, "Thou shalt not kill."

How say you AJ?

Yutsie: Baal.

Baal, or Ba el. There were not only the descendants of Jacob that joined the Exodus. There were disaffected Egyptians & other slaves as well. It is only natural that these people bring their own Religion with them. For some it was the Sun God, for others it was the Worship of the Apis Bull. Now that they weren't in Egypt & they needed a new God to replace the Apis Bull then they would have to reincarnate the Apis Bull in the form of the "Son of the Apis Bull" or "Ba Al/El" (Ba=Son of, El or Al=God.) Hence the Son of God. Hmmm.... where have I heard that expression before?

' They are simply people who believe that the state and the churches should be separate, that the state should not interfere in the way religions govern themselves and that the religions should not interfere in the way the state governs itself.'

Glenc

u r extremely blind if you can't see that as a result of secular/feminist dogma we are now a more violent/immoral society. You obviously have not visited many state schools recently where teachers are assaulted at a rate even alarming to secularist. After 40 years of secular dogma drug use is at epidemic proportions and teenagers are topping themselves like never before. What don't you get or do you enjoy twisting things to deny reality. Quoting a few dodgie figures from Europe just confirms your bias. The secularist are the fools who allowed Europe to be Islamised due to their blind ignorance.

btw I think church should be separate from state also. What secularist are totally intolerant is having people with a different view from their own. Obviously you have not watched abc for the last 20 years. They are among the most intolerant bigots in this country.

Jayb

You like rushing in where angels fear to tread. The book you are describing says that before they made the golden calf , the people heard the commandments and said "We will hear and do it" and after that the tablets were made. Deuteronomy 5: 1- 27.

Egyptian ' ba' means "soul" and they had no ' el '. Bal means 'husband, owner, lord'. There was no Baal at Mount Sinai.



Semitic roots:
"lord" root *ba&#699;l- Arab ba&#699;l-
Hebrew bá&#699;a

Why do I get the feeling that I could as well publish a page from the telephone directory and I would get the same discussion driven by the same people on this thread?

G'day Runner,

Thank you, stick to your principles - they seem to be in short supply these days.

One person I admire greatly is Mother Teresa: in her early forties she began to have serious doubts about the existence of a god: could a god allow such misery and suffering that she was witnessing in Bengal - but she kept working with the poorest right until she died almost fifty years later.

Her compassion for and devotion to her fellow human beings, regardless of whether or not she had God's support, is surely a most wonderful thing, something which few people, including atheists, could emulate or would even contemplate. We surely must live by our principles and do what we can to alleviate misery and privation, and if we don't think those principles are god-given, then we must struggle to fashion our own.

We are each of us on the Earth, this beautiful Earth, for a short time, which everybody is entitled to enjoy free of oppression and misery, whether they are Bangla slum-kids or peasants or Balmain professionals. All of us, believers or non-believers, should be able to see that we have obligations to each other as fellow human beings, and that includes our fellow human beings wherever they are.

Thank you, Runner, and Merry Christmas.

Joe

Hmmm... Is or is not "El" an early Hebrew or Aramaic word for "God?" It is. One of many names for God that were around at that time.

Yarweh is another, Jehova another although it a translation of Yarweh.

Even Jesus said Elahi, Elahi or Eloi, Eloi. English Translation My God, My God. & Ba is a form of address like Joshua ba Nosri or Jesus's real name.

It was King Josiah that combined the many Gods of Israel into one, Yarhew.

Loudmouth

' One person I admire greatly is Mother Teresa: in her early forties she began to have serious doubts about the existence of a god: could a god allow such misery and suffering that she was witnessing in Bengal - but she kept working with the poorest right until she died almost fifty years later. '

strangely enough Loudmouth the existence of evil should convince anyone of the existence of the devil and his demons. The cruelty humans inflict on others is horrifying. If their is no devils humans certainly fill the role. One can't help but to admire anyone who gives up their life to serve to poor. She certainly was an inspiration to many. Today we normally make heroes out of self serving UN officials or some so called climate guru. Can you believe Rudd is being considered for a UN post?

Have a blessed Christmas Loudmouth. Despite our differences your rational non pc posts are a breath of fresh air.

Dear Peter,

<<Why do I get the feeling that I could as well publish a page from the telephone directory and I would get the same discussion driven by the same people on this thread?>>

Perhaps it is due to your absence: I wish you were more active here to direct the conversation!

---

Dear Jayb,

<<No that's not correct. The God didn't speak directly to the people. He spoke to Moses & Arron up on the Mountain.>>

(You mean "Aaron" in his English spelling, or "Aharon" in the original Hebrew)

Well, I don't know what actually happened there at Mt. Sinai - perhaps you know better, but I certainly know what's written about it in the bible, using the original text rather than a translation.

<<Appart from that there is nowhere where God says, "Kill anyone who does worship strange Gods." God did command, "Thou shalt not kill.">>

Another mistranslation: the original says "Thou shalt not murder".

As for the former, you may refer to the biblical command to kill them, but only gradually lest the beasts of the field outnumber humans: Deuteronomy 7, 16-22.

<<Baal, or Ba el... "Ba Al/El" (Ba=Son of, El or Al=God.)>>

"Baal" is spelled Bet-Ayin-Lamed, whereas "El" (an ancient term for God) is spelled Aleph-Lamed. The letter Ayin is pronounced at the back of the throat and has no English equivalent, thus the two are of completely different roots. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Guttural_Letters/guttural_letters.html

"Baal" by the way means either "owner" or "husband", in this case meaning that the husband of the land is sowing his seed and makes her fertile - not much of that in the Sinai desert...

nicknamenick,

I was referring to your response to me:

“As WWI did not end all wars so mobilising mass rejection will not end extreme allegiances and may well be extremism itself.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17910#317527)

Anyway, I gave you Dawkins’ more palatable “consciousness raising” to show that my main point, with regards to why bad ideas need to be countered, was still valid.

As for your crime stats, they’re quite cherry-picked. The vast majority of data shows a strong correlation between religiosity and poor societal health:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://www.skepticmoney.com/tabular-relationship-of-religion-and-iq-poverty-murder-theft-divorce-giving-and-health/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

While this may not prove that religion is bad for societies, it certainly debunks runner’s claim that a move away from religiosity is the cause of society's ills.

Jayb,

I have no idea what the point is that you’re trying to make.

Joe,

I thought the fact that Mother Teresa was actually a cruel and cynical fraud and phony was common knowledge now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCaxHN-cY

.

Dear Peter/Sells,

.

You ask :

« Why do I get the feeling that I could as well publish a page from the telephone directory and I would get the same discussion driven by the same people on this thread? »

I am delighted to respond to your call for comments on your article :
.

You wrote :

« While it is popular to say, in an intended peace-making turn, that Christianity, and Islam believe in the one God, it is apparent from close inspection that this is not true. When Christians talk about God they talk about the triune identity. This is non-negotiable. »

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim theological lineage to Abraham as their patriarch.

However, Christianity distinguished themself from Judaism and Islam when the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus in the 4th and 5th centuries AD elaborated and adopted the doctrine of the trinity.

As a result, Judaism and Islam both consider that Trinitarian Christianity is not monotheistic religion. Perhaps it could better be described as “pluriform” monotheism.

But not all Christian denominations are Trinitarian. Many are not “pluriform” monotheistic but “exclusively” monotheistic like Judaism and Islam.

Wikipedia indicates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam) :

[ The identification of God both in Islam and in Christianity with the God of Abraham has been used to argue for a limited amount of mutual recognition among the Abrahamic religions on the part of Ludovico Marracci, the confessor of Pope Innocent XI, who wrote in 1734:

“That both Mohammed and those among his followers who are reckoned orthodox, had and continue to have just and true notions of God and His attributes, appears so plain from the Koran itself and all the Muslim laws, that it would be loss of time to refute those who suppose the God of Mohammed to be different from the true God”.]

Why, then, should the "triune identity" be "non-negotiable" if the "God of Mohammed" is no different from the "true God" ?

Hasn't Christianity considered that the identity of the "true God" is modifiable ?

.

AJ
"cherry picked".
You selected Scandinavia and Japan and so I googled and got different ( opposite) results.
Your site has this quote, which shows the simple theory is astray. There would be other factors in US such as race and economic imbalance.

'The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this

sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares).

Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard

(Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the norm.'

nicknamenick,

You're confusing me with someone else. I never mentioned Scandinavia or Japan specifically. The data I linked to covered many countries.

<<Your site has this quote, which shows the simple theory is astray.>>

What simple theory? And how is it astray?

AJ
Correct, you didn't mention Japan. You answered the other half of my comment .
But your quote about religion / rape is still dodgy by its own assessment: the facts against it are "outliers" and must be mistakes.
Religious Arabs and irreligious Japanese , in general, abuse women so the score is 1 all.

nicknamenick,

I haven't said anything about rape and religion. You've lost me completely now, sorry.

Just to somehow get this thread back on track (although I think it's heading off towards Tibooburra by now: egos, Geez) -

Nick put his finger on something: the similarity of the barbarities between the ISIS fascists and the Japanese fascists during the War. Both regard non-whatevers as sub-human, unter-menschen, to be raped, butchered, used as target or bayonet practice, blown up, machine-gunned, used as 'comfort women' or sex slaves.

Both utter scum. And yes, religion was at the core of both these fascisms: Islam in one case, and Shinto in the other. In both cases, each thought they had the right to rule the world and exterminate whoever didn't/doesn't fit in. I remember finding banknotes in a tin for use by Japanese thugs once they had invaded Australia. I'm pretty sure that my family would have been exterminated if they had, just as I expect to be if Islamists prevail in Australia.

Even as a fairly slow-witted atheist, I can dimly trace the indirect links between Christian teachings (and Greek and Roman notions) and, through the Enlightenment, to my own grab-bag of fuzzy principles. I don't mean the Crusades or the witch-burnings or the extermination of the Cathars, but just the general and imperfect trends: the separation of church and state, the rights of the person (Magna Carta, post-Westphalia, etc.) and the opening-up of the opportunity for people to think for themselves, to offend without fearing death for themselves and their loved ones.

I look forward to the day, if I live long enough, when Muslims can also think for themselves, question the Koran, reject what they think is total bullsh!t and select what they want to live by. Or reject the lot, of course.

Joe

AJ
My first post that you answered was about violence against women and you commented on its cherry-picking.
Your quote has 'Other prosperous democracies do
not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime'.
So OK it's crime in general but the theme was rape , in GlenC comment.

Gee's AJ, the old Magistrate must have a fun time with you in a Court Room.

AJ: Jayb, I have no idea what the point is that you’re trying to make.

Should Moses, & Arron be charged with Murder or maybe even Genocide for the whole sale slaughter of Baal Worshippers?

I notice there were 10 or 14 Commandments but no mention of Penalties to be given to transgressors.

How say you?

.

Dear Peter/Sells,

.

Though, at the time of the events related in the New Testament, there were many people called Jesus and possibly several from Nazareth, and presuming that all the events concerned just one of them, the same Jesus of Nazareth, there is no reason to doubt that he was a human being.

The doubt is whether he was god – not just a representative of god - but god himself.

I can understand the negative reaction of the other two Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism and Islam, when Christianity decided to raise that particular human being to the rank of divinity, four hundred years after he was purported to have been executed.

This was mainly due to the Roman emperor Constantine (the Great) who, to quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica: « not only initiated the evolution of the empire into a Christian state but also provided the impulse for a distinctively Christian culture that prepared the way for the growth of Byzantine and Western medieval culture »:

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor

The doctrine of the Trinity was adopted by “the Church” as you call it, in the year 325 AD. As the World Timeline puts it :

« Christianity is receiving state support, new churches, more wealth and more elaborate rituals. Christianity's bishops defer to the authority of Constantine, who wants to heal divisions within the Church. Constantine presides over the Church's first ecumenical (general) council, at Nicea, to decide the nature of Jesus Christ. Bishop Arius and Arian Christianity lose. The doctrine of the Trinity is accepted ».

The Trinity was a concept that was adopted on purely political grounds, not just on its theological merits as you indicate.

http://www.fsmitha.com/time/ce04.htm

Political differences are evolutive and “negotiable”.

From a purely theological point of view, this departure from “exclusive” monotheism to “pluriform” monotheism could probably have been avoided had the Church decided that god appeared as a human being temporarily in order to achieve atonement, instead of raising him permanently to the status of divinity, equal to god himself.

This would have avoided having to invent the holy ghost and the virgin birth.

.

Banjo: there were many people called Jesus

Well, no there wasn’t. The name Jesus is Greek & didn’t appear until after the Council of Nicaea. It is not a Greek equivalent of Joshua.

Banjo: I can understand the negative reaction of the other two Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism and Islam, when Christianity decided to raise that particular human being to the rank of divinity, four hundred years after he was purported to have been executed.

Woops! Islam wouldn’t be around for another 350 odd years.

Banjo: Constantine presides over the Church's first ecumenical (general) council, at Nicaea, to decide the nature of Jesus Christ.

The Councill of Nicaea wasn’t a solely Christian affair. Constantine call the leaders of ALL the Religions of the Roman Empire to the Council. He wanted a religion that would be accepted by the people. When the Council started Constantine placed his Praetorian Guard around the Great Hall with the express orders that anyone that stuck their head outside was to have it lopped off. They were eventually put on Bread & Water rations. The final decision took a year & a day.

The decision finally came down to three Christian Sects. Paulean, Manicheans & Priscillians. Constantine dismissed the Pricillians, Two were left Pauleans & Manicheans. When Constantine started to favour the Manicheans St. Augustine stepped in & sent emissary to Constantine with a matching Brace of four Arab stallions. Constantine chose Paulean Christianity.

The first thing the Pauleans did was to start executing all the non-Pauleans if they didn’t accept the ruling. That was bad news for most of the Christians in Britain as they were Manicheans.

The name Jesus is a combination of Zeus, Hesus & it was spelt Yesus as there is no J equivalent in Greek or Latin. Zeus being the head Greek God & Hesus being the Sun God from Britain where Constantine was born & grew up. His mother was a Christian. A descendent from John the Younger & his wife was also a Christian.

Interesting note. When Constantine was on his deathbed the Christian Bishops came in, Dismissed his Praetorian Guard, closed the doors & waited for him to die. When he did the Bishops came out & announced that Constantine had been baptised & died a Christian. Convenient eh. Constantine worshipped “Sol Invictus.”

It wasn’t until about 380 The Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great declared Christianity the Only Religion of the Roman Empire & condoned the destruction of all Temples to other Gods. The Christian Bishops set about destroying & looting the Temples & persecuting the remaining people who were not Christians.

Dear Joe,

Fascism was a form of national organisation in the first part of the twentieth century. Among its characteristics were reverence for a charismatic leader like Mussolini or Hitler, spectacle like elaborate, staged party meetings, a one party state, militarism including showy uniforms, extreme nationalism, glorification of the mechanical and extreme male chauvinism.

Unless all or most of those elements are present I don’t think it’s legitimate to call a movement fascist. Calling a movement fascist where these elements are largely absent merely becomes name-calling. Both ISIS and the Japanese army are quite different from the German and Italian Fascists. About the only Fascists around now are those who revere the memory of Mussolini and Hitler and would restore their system.

Japanese are generally not exclusively devoted to one religion the way we are. Japanese may practice both Shinto and Buddhism and come to Australia on a honeymoon including a Christian wedding ceremony. The Japanese officer corps during WW2 were primarily influenced by Zen Buddhism.

The Enlightenment and separation of church and state stemmed not from Christianity but from opposition to Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

“The Enlightenment, known in French as the Siècle des Lumières (Century of Enlightenment) and in German as the Aufklärung, was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The principal goals of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, fraternity and ending the abuses of the church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.

The leaders of the Reformation were intolerant men who wanted neither freedom of religion nor independent thought.

Martin Luther’s diatribes against Jews were printed verbatim in the Nazi newspapers to support the Nazi Program.

John Calvin had Servetus who doubted the Trinity burned at the stake in 1553.

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 points to my article on that subject.

continued

continued

As the Reformation swept through Europe there was no room for freedom of religion except for the rulers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio

Cuius regio, eius religio is a Latin phrase which literally means "Whose realm, his religion", meaning that the religion of the ruler was to dictate the religion of those ruled. At the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, which ended a period of armed conflict between Roman Catholic and Protestant forces within the Holy Roman Empire, the rulers of the German-speaking states and Charles V, the Emperor, agreed to accept this principle. It was to apply to all the territories of the Empire except for the Ecclesiastical principalities, and some of the cities in those ecclesiastical states, where the question of religion was addressed under the separate principles of Reservatum ecclesiasticum and Declaratio Ferdinandei.

The United States was the first nation whose basic law embodied freedom of religion.

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 points to my article on that subject.

Religion in general is characterised by opposition to people thinking for themselves. The secular state has tamed the inherent intolerance of Christianity. Those who questioned the doctrines of Christianity fostered the growth of the secular state. A similar development in the Islamic world will come if enough Muslims question Islam.

“Nature’s God” by Matthew Stuart tells of the philosophy motivating the founders of the United States. The chief influences were Lucretius and Spinoza. Lucretius was a pagan Roman poet and Spinoza was a Jew who rejected Judaism, Christianity and all ‘historical religions.’

Hi David,

I don't disagree necessarily with anything you have written here, except that you seem to have taken what I wrote over-literally. But I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that ISIS does fit roughly into your limited definition: 'elaborate, staged party meetings, a one party state, militarism including showy uniforms, extreme nationalism, glorification of the mechanical and extreme male chauvinism.'

I would have thought that the more salient features of fascism are the adherence to a pseudo-Utopian doctrine, and extreme repression of out-groups (those two going closely together). How does ISIS not fit into your definition, if you add those two ?

And of course, I'm not saying that the Enlightenment sprang directly from Christianity - much more as a reaction to it, and multiple strands of scientific, social and economic developments which serendipitously exploited the inconsistencies and weaknesses in Christian doctrine, and the inescapable fact that any such religion casting its net over all of Europe was bound to be fractured, schismatic, with local derivations and versions which - inadvertently but eventually - gave rise to that exploitation. Christianity as a foil, if you like.

As well, by proclaiming the existence of 'free will', that heaven was the reward for good works and good behaviour, the Church - at least in the west - provided the small opportunity, unintentionally of course, for people to interpret what 'good works' were, even against the advice of their priests. Hence, once Rome was defied and priests were bypassed, the huge spate of local sects and movements across north-west Europe in particular, along with the chance not to believe at all, or at least not to practise so fervently. Of course, Protestantism had its al Qa'idas too, Calvin etc.

So I'm still posing an Enlightenment-oriented West, the bastard child of Christianity, against a fascist-oriented ISIS, the Frankenstein's monster of Islam.

All the best for the holiday season, David.

Joe

.

Dear Jayb,

.

Thank you for those interesting details. I admire your science but it would be helpful if you would kindly indicate your sources. I am no expert which is why I try to indicate my own sources wherever possible.

Unfortunately, I omitted to precise how I learned that Jesus was a very common name at the time he is said to have lived. That was from a BBC televised report during which an underground tomb chamber that had been discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem and sealed-up was opened and filmed as it had been suggested it might contain the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

They found several tombs in the chamber, one of which bore the name of Jesus but one of the experts interviewed indicated that Jesus was a very popular Jewish name at the time.

Professor Andrey Feuerverger, a mathematician and statistician at the University of Toronto estimated that about 4% of the male population of Jerusalem bore the name of Jesus 2,000 years ago.

Here are a couple of links substantiating this :

« It was just an ordinary Jewish name, about as common in Judea as John is common to us » :

http://www.jesus.org/is-jesus-god/names-of-jesus/jesus-an-ordinary-name.html
.

« Professor Kloner told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the name Jesus had been found 71 times in burial caves at around that time » :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/27/religion.israel
.

You exclaimed :

« Woops! Islam wouldn’t be around for another 350 odd years »

True, but its objection to the concept of the Trinity was the same as that of Judaism.
.

You indicated :

« The name Jesus is a combination of Zeus, Hesus & it was spelt Yesus as there is no J equivalent in Greek or Latin. Zeus being the head Greek God & Hesus being the Sun God from Britain where Constantine was born & grew up »

Here is a Jewish denial of that :

https://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/what-is-the-original-hebrew-name-for-jesus-and-is-it-true-that-the-name-jesus-is-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus/

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Christianity started as just one of many small sects. Saul of Tarsus picked it up and ran with it sometime around AD 33-36, writing about 50% of the New Testament with the help of his assistant Luke (http://apologika.blogspot.fr/2014/05/who-wrote-most-of-new-testament.html).

But the decisive boost came from Constantine in the year 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he converted to Christianity and became the sole ruler of the immense Roman Empire. He paved the way for the emergence of Christianity as a Christian State.

Without his personal contribution Christianity would probably have remained divided into different factions, constantly squabbling with each other and gradually whittling away until they finally disappeared like so many other sects at the time.

Though it is reported that Constantine assessed his own role as that of the 13th Apostle (cf. the last line of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article for which I provided the link in my previous post), his conversion to Christianity is generally considered to have been “politically motivated”.

Christianity would certainly not be what it is today if it were not for Constantine. It may not have even existed.

Also, there can be no doubt that Constantine played the determinant role in the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity at the first ecumenical council of “the Church” at Nicaea over which he presided in the year 325. Peter/Sells makes no mention of this.

As I indicated in my previous post, the concept of the Trinity was adopted on purely political grounds, not just on its theological merits as he indicates in his article.

.

.

Oops, I forgot to take the "s" off the "https" address in my first post above. Here it is again :

http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/what-is-the-original-hebrew-name-for-jesus-and-is-it-true-that-the-name-jesus-is-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus/

Sorry about that.

.

The rumours say Constantine preferred Yehoshuah to be separate.
'Eusebius and Theognis ( of Arius non-trinity) remained in the Emperor's favor, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.'

.

Dear nicknamenick,

.

What seems pretty certain is that those 300 bishops who gathered together at the Council of Nicaea in Turkey in the year 325 would never have arrived at an agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity if it had not been for the determination and power of persuasion of Constantine whose guiding motto was reportedly “one empire, one emperor, one religion”.

I’m willing to bet that, if Constantine had not succeeded in imposing the Trinity but somehow still managed to unify “the Church”, our dear friend Peter/Sells would be scoffing today at the suggestion that it could possibly have been adopted, telling us what a complicated concept it was. That no ordinary mortal could make head nor tail of it. Wondering how on earth anyone could ever have imagined God in the form of a single entity with three different, concomitant identities: two spiritual and one human, a sort of mythical Hydra guarding the passage to the Afterlife.

So much for the interaction and cross-fertilization of politics and religion.

I am also amazed that “the Church” has adopted, to symbolise itself, such a gruesome instrument of torture as the cross. The only logical explanation I can imagine is that it probably reflects the tortured personality of Saul of Tarsus who, with the help of his assistant, Luke, wrote 50% of the New Testament.

Saul had a long history of religious fanaticism. He participated in the stoning to death of the first Christian martyr, Etienne, then became a rabbi before having an illumination and converting to Christianity. He was a tent maker by profession. His life was marked by physical violence, pain, illness and self-flagellation – to such an extent that he seemed to have masochistic tendencies, detesting himself and the human condition, while glorifying the virtues of obedience and submission.

For Saul, religion appears to have been the sublimation of the death impulse which haunted him all his life. It obsessed him and consumed him. Nero put him out of his misery by decapitating him in Rome in the year 64.

.

(Continued …)

.

Banjo: those 300 bishops

& The major representatives of every other Religion in the Roman Empire. If he wanted the Roman people on his side he had to be inclusive of all the people. Otherwise he would have had a Major Revolt on his hands.

Locking them all in the Great Hall at Nicaea with the threat of death if they tried to leave. It was his idea of getting a consensus, by all the major religions, on a Religion everyone could agree on for the good of the Empire.

Nicknamenick: accepted baptism on his deathbed,

That's what I was taught at school. But as my teachers said we only have the Bishops words for that because they had dismissed the Guard & they were the only people at the deathbed. Very Convenient eh.

As far as Saul of Tarsus is concerned. He was a Tax Collector for the Temple. He brought the money collected from the non-Israel Communities back to the Temple to be undefiled by the Priests before it could be touched by a Jew. (I just can't put my finger on the word for non-Israeli Jew.)

I guess he was coming back to the Temple with a big Bag of money when he had his epiphany. "I am a Jew but I am still treated as an outsider." That's when he saw the light & became a Christian. Paul, never met or knew Jesus, Yet his teachings make up more than 50% of the New Testament. In fact not one of the Gospel writers ever set eyes on Jesus. It's all Hearsay. Where are the writings of the Apostles? Banned, hmmm...

.

(Continued …)

.

“The Church” celebrates the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (also called Holy Cross Day) on September 14.

According to the historians, the cross existed as a religious symbol well before the advent of Christianity, but not with the same gruesome connotation. Before its adoption by “the Church” to symbolise the crucifixion of Jesus, exactly what it was intended to signify in ancient times remains a matter of conjecture among specialists.

Be that as it may, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt today that the cross has become the symbol of violence, torture, pain, suffering and excruciating death in the most horrible possible conditions.

I have difficulty understanding why “the Church” of Peter/Sells wishes to continue to project that image of itself to the rest of the world ?

A more peaceful and fraternal image would seem to me to be far more appropriate. Why not that other symbol the early Christians were known to use and which has been found in many funerary inscriptions in the Roman catacombs: a white dove holding an olive branch in its beak. Perhaps that symbol should be revived and promoted.

That would certainly project a less morbid image of “the Church” than the cross.

.

Banjo: the cross has become the symbol of violence, torture, pain, suffering and excruciating death in the most horrible possible conditions.

One reason I remember from my early Education is that "The God" wanted to show that any suffering we have on earth is nothing compared to what "The God." suffered for us. That gave the early Church Carte Blanche to inflict what ever punishment or harsh conditions it wanted to on it's members.

Early Christian Symbols; The fish (Roman), The Lamb (Syrian), The Dove (Turkey or Eastern Holy Roman Empire. The final image was the Lamb holding the Cross in it's front legs with the Dove & Olive branch shining a light down on them. The Lamb & Cross signifying Jesus & his death & the Dove in a Halo & Light signifying God the Father & the Holy Ghost. RefS; "The Lost Language of Symbolism." Vol. 1 & 2, by Harold Bayley. ISBN: 0-898-185054-1 & 987-1-58509-309-0. "Symbols." by Sandra Forty. ISBN: 1-57145-979-0. "Dictionary of Symbols." Tom Chetwynd. ISBN: 1-85538-296-2.
The whiteness of the Lamb signifies Jesus's purity, The Cross or Stave signifies the Sheppard (Jesus) If its a banner with a Cross, It's John the Baptist.
The fish was used by the Romans. Supposedly the letters for Fish in Greek spelt out "Jesus Christ, Son of Man, Saviour. I learnt that in School too. The Dove goes back to Noah & the Ark. When the Raven didn't return & the Dove did.

.

Dear Jayb,

.

You certainly seem to have had a pretty heavy religious education. Am I right in thinking it must have been a Catholic school? Mine was a State primary school in the Queensland bush - my only formal education.

You also seem to have an excellent memory. I can’t, for the life of me, remember anything from the religious education classes I had occasionally.

Thank you for those interesting details on Christian symbolism. I definitely prefer the dove to the fish, the lamb, the cross or the stave (with or without the banner).

France, where I now live, passed a law in 1905 making it a secular state, i.e., separation of church and state, the state observing strict neutrality in respect of all religious denominations, favouring none, but guaranteeing freedom of religion for everybody as a fundamental human right. However, a law of 1993 made polygamy illegal, a law of 2004 made it illegal to wear conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, and a law of 2011 made it illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places such as the street, shops, museums, etc.

Since 1905, the symbol of unity of the nation is no longer religion but the Republic, which resulted from the French revolution of 1789, and the symbol of that was the storming of the Bastille and the decapitation of the reigning king, Louis XVI and his wife, the queen, Marie Antoinette.

Nevertheless, I can’t imagine anybody in France wanting to wear a necklace with a guillotine on it or placing a full life-size guillotine in all the public buildings throughout the country as Christians place crosses of the crucifixion of Jesus in all the Christian churches throughout the world. Nor can I imagine a footballer, a boxer, or anybody else for that matter, making the sign of his head being chopped-off (as with the guillotine) before some important event, as I often see some of them furtively crossing themselves (as Christians) today, presumably to bring them good luck.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

Another barbaric practice of Christianity is the celebration of Mass (Holy Communion in the Anglican church). The host (wafers) and wine are believed to be miraculously “transubstantiated” (transformed) into the flesh and blood of Jesus (2,000 years old !) when the priest pronounces the magic words (called the “verba” or “words of institution” or “words of consecration” of a prayer called the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer).

The priest then distributes the raw flesh and blood separately to each member of the congregation who eat and drink them (raw !) in a barbaric act of cannibalism - though some Anglican denominations see the host and wine as the “spiritual” body and blood of Jesus (therefore, presumably, not as his “physical” body and blood).

Perhaps the consumption of the “spiritual” body and blood of a human being is a slightly lesser barbaric act of cannibalism than the consumption of the human being's physical body and blood.

The concept of “spirit possession” (as this "spiritual" consumption is called) exists in many religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Haitian Voodoo, Wicca, Hinduism, Islam and Southeast Asian and African traditions (cf. "Spirit possession" in Wikipedia).

Spirit possession is mentioned by Saul of Tarsus’ assistant and disciple, Luke, in the New Testament - Luke 8:30 King James Version (KJV) :

« And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him »

Mark’s gospel (slightly posterior to Luke’s) gives this version - Mark 5:9 King James Version (KJV) :

« And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many »

Personally, I think the Eucharist ( Mass or Holy Communion) should be celebrated by Christianity as a special feast once a year on whatever day of the year Jesus shared the Last Supper with his Apostles, in fond memory of that particular occasion - not every day or several times a day, as at present.

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

... and I think it would be much better to serve just a few light refreshments including, perhaps, a little cooked meat (ham, for example) mineral water, fruit juice and perhaps some light wine (not too expensive) for that special day, but, of course ... without all that pretended magic and invocation of the spirits and other paraphernalia.

If Jesus is still around ... somewhere ... I'm sure he'd be quite happy with that and, who knows, he might even decide to join in the celebrations without saying a word, but ... better leave it to him. He'll know what's best. No need to force the issue !

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Of the four gospels in the New Testament, Luke’s is the only to indicate that Jesus tells his disciples to repeat the ritual of bread and wine. None of the other three even mention it.

It is all the more odd because it has been established that the gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke are so strikingly similar, not only in content but even the language used, that it is generally agreed by scholars that they have drawn upon common source material. For this reason they are called the “synoptic” gospels.

It is difficult to imagine that Mathew and Mark had not known about such an important commandment of Jesus if, indeed, he gave it.

John’s was the last gospel to be written. It differs completely from the others in its overall presentation and content, focussing much more on private conversations and only relating a few selected miracles. It is therefore less surprising that John makes no mention of the commandment that Luke is the only one to relate.

An additional factor of doubt about Luke’s narrative is that it is a disputed text which does not appear in some of the early manuscripts of his gospel. Some manuscripts omit, in whole or in part the incriminated verses :

« Luke 22:19-20 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

19 And He took bread, and gave thanks and broke it and gave it unto them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”

20 Likewise also He took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you »

Some scholars consider that it is an interpolation, a passage that was not written by Luke but added later by somebody else. It could be a falsification.

The sole justification of the Eucharist ( Mass or Holy Communion) is this controversial text :

Here is my main source :

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

.

Also, apparently, “the Church” already celebrates the anniversary of the Last Supper :

http://www.ibtimes.com/last-supper-was-wednesday-not-thursday-challenges-cambridge-professor-colin-humphreys-280407

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Well, I doubt that “the Church” will change the date of the celebration of the Last Supper from Maundy Thursday (the Thursday before Easter, preceded by Holy Wednesday and followed by Good Friday) even though Sir Colin J. Humphreys, a physicist from Cambridge University, dates it scientifically to Wednesday, April 1, 33AD on the basis of the narratives of the four gospels.

Prof. Humphreys published his findings five years ago now and “the Church” hasn’t said a word. Nothing has changed.

At least “the Church” is consistent in privileging faith over facts, or should I say faith over science, whenever they oppose each other. Maundy Thursday is Maundy Thursday even if it was a Wednesday.

I don’t know if superstition has anything to do with it but it could be that “the Church” already feels a bit uneasy with the thought that Jesus and his friends were 13 seated around the table at the Last Supper. The fact that the meal has now been found to have taken place on April fool’s day only make matters worse. It’s beginning to look like a practical joke.

It’s no wonder Peter, the “rock” on which Jesus planned to build “the Church” turned traitor and denied knowing him, three times, the very next day, even though neither of them had had time to finish digesting the meal they had shared together the previous evening, the original Eucharist ( Mass or Holy Communion).

The so-called “rock” had crumbled to dust and failed miserably to pass the first three tests. That did not augur well for the future of “the Church”.

Some of Peter’s successors have since shown signs of weakness, as the following advocacy in defence of “the Church” illustrates :

http://www.holynameofmaryparish.com/documents/Bad%20Popes.pdf
.

Looking to the future, Prof. Riaz Hassan, Director of the International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding at the University of South Australia pointed out that by the year 2070, Islam will be the world’s largest religion. Many countries will no longer be predominantly Christian because future generations of present day Christians will not practise religion.

.

.

Dear Peter/Sells,

.

You wrote (page 9 of this thread) :

« Why do I get the feeling that I could as well publish a page from the telephone directory and I would get the same discussion driven by the same people on this thread? »
.

I hope that the 14 comments that I have posted here (including this one) will bring joy to your heart during this festive season. I think you will find that I have, as always, done my best to focus on the theme of your article.

Naturally, I could do no more than post my own, personal, comments. I alone could not post the “discussion” you would have liked to have seen. For that, I should have had somebody to dialogue with – yourself, perhaps.

As I have not heard from you, I presume you are happy with my comments. To quote that well known Latin proverbe :

« Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit »

Unless, of course, I hear from you to the contrary !

Wishing you and yours all the very best of health, success, peace and happiness in 2016,

.