Mark: Agree wholeheartedly with your comments. Don't forget those who pushed the totally unscriptual and perhaps blasphemous "Jesus" film and now Nadia belong to a religious movement not to Christianity.
These same people probably see Christ as a long haired effeminate wispy bearded twit when He was/is the very Son of the Almighty God.
So He is depicted as a Lamb, this same Lamb is going to put down all rebellion and rule with a rod of iron.
It is a crying shame what those who claim to be His are doing to Him.
numbat

Thanks Mark,

A nice twist from the Lion to the Lamb…

It is a pity how the world today has no inclination to discover who Jesus is. They use His name in vain but have not a clue what or who He represents. Nothing less than God, one with God, deserving our worship and all the glory.

I was reflecting over the weekend on how our non-Christian friends must feel and live outside Jesus’ family; putting myself in their moccasins for a minute… one long minute… I was horrified.

Having no assurance of salvation and no real hope is terrifying stuff.

An eternity away from God? it's hell - even without the fire.

I wept.

I thank God for what He has done for me. He died for “me", He took away my sin for ever, He died "my" death, He offered Himself as a living sacrifice for "me" - all for "me" an undeserving person and all I had to do is say thank you Lord… I was blind and now I see … for now on I live my life under your Lordship and not for my selfishness.

No wonder the Gospel is called the “good news”

I couldn't agree more, Mark. I like the Narnia stories, but they are not the gospel. CS Lewis was writing fiction and exploring ideas about God and about redemption, and that it what the reader will find in Narnia: not the Jesus of the Bible.

As you say, Jesus does not 'win' by violence, as Aslan does. Jesus' presence is not so capricious as that of Aslan, Jesus is not a supporter of empire, as Aslan ends up being.

And we should be reminding fellow-believers not to read the wrong gospel, as you have done.

I didn't intend the ambiguity 'as you have done'! It gives my comment an unintended nasty twist. Please read it as, "remind our fellow-believers to read the right gospel, as you have reminded them." (Oh the power of English!)

I haven't seen the Narnia movie myself ,and as a practising Christian,I decided not to go to it. My Christian wife and son,& grandaughter loved it believe that it is a type of Christian story.

I read a review,of it by C S Lewis's step son in the West Australian newspaper,and he says that it is NOT a Christian story, even though he is a Christian himself.
Churches are raving about it ,and it is wrong, as Christ didn't use violence to win He went as a lamb.

As well,The Passion was a good movie with lots of blood ,etc ,was a bit off,although it was a box office winner,it did not change Americans as far as church going or decisions for Christ.

coach, any thoughts on the content of Mark's article?
I liked it but suspect the message it tells would be quite unwelcome (if understood) in much of the contemporary church.

Mark talks about a much better Jesus than the modern church generally talks about, if I heard about his Jesus and did not know about that Jesus aceptance of his fathers violent past and the poor job that Jesus does running his church I could almost like him.

My experience moving from a belief in Jesus, his dad, the spook etc to a belief that they do not exist as taught by the christain church has been one of relief. Coming to grips with my mortality was not fun, my life will come to an end one day and that is something that I'm not thrilled about. Moving on from a belief in a god who sets the rules and stacks the deck against the other players was good (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God etc).

Moving on from following a head who cannot or will not manage his own church was good - if an all knowing all powerfull being is unable to stop those employed in his name from abusing large numbers of children over a sustained period or to help large numbers of his preachers from giving the church office secretary some extra duties (or any one of a host of other issues) then I didn't want him deciding how my life should be lived.

If my chances of being one of the saved were largely a product of being born in a culture where belief in that particular God was widespread while people raised in a culture which believed in a different God (or lack thereof) stood almost no chance then I was happy to leave that false "salvation" behind.

pt 1 of 2
R0bert

Pt 2 of 2
coach
Life without your God can be rather good when you consider the alternative. It's true that there is a tiny chance that the christain gospel may be correct, if so from this vanatge point I'm kind of fussy about who I would want to hang around with for eternity and right now the christain God (and a substantial proportion of his followers) don't cut it. There is also a small chance that an alien spacecraft will land in my driveway this afternoon, maybe I should go move the car so it does not get squashed.

If you want to sit in the shoes of the unbeliever who has rejected your God do so by considering the possibility that God is not worthy and then think about how eternity with God would look.

R0bert

Having watched the movie and having spent sometime within Christianity I would have to say that violence is the path that both characters end up employing to bring about their desired end result.

Christians are kidding themselves if they think Jesus didn't condone violence, and won't use it in the future against those who do not obey him.

It is the hollywood Jesus that is largely portrayed within the church world. This Jesus never complains; taking it on the other cheek, whereas the Jesus I read about in the Bible compares himself to a king asking his faithful followers to slay unbelievers in his presence upon his return (see Luke 19:22-27).

The so-called "lamb" looks more like a lion on a closer examination

Good comment Robert,

I am amazed at how fanatics of all religions 'are horrified' at the fate awaiting those who don't share their faith.

R0bert,

I suspect that you may have never truly known Jesus nor God before. You are angry at them, you find faults in them to justify your position.

You add your church experience: if the church is bad therefore God is bad. This is like saying someone ran a red light killing another innocent person, therefore traffic lights are bad.

I must repeat that you do not “know” what it is to have a personal relationship with God. Once you can experience that you cannot turn your back on Him.

The problem with most unbelievers is not of intellectual or emotional convictions, although we witness a lot of that on OLO, the problem is not with the head but with the neck. Most people will not bend their neck and bow to their creator because they are too proud and/or ignorant of the consequences.

Your ending remark is also no excuse. Being born in the wrong place, time, parents, religion, political regime, etc… God reveals himself to those who seek him. He made sure that this trait is in all humans.

I encourage you to reflect quietly sifting through your beliefs, setting aside your pride, prejudice (qualified or not)… until you find that lost piece of yourself that used to obey, respect, love, follow, hang around, cuddle, play with your own dad and mom. This is but a crude hint of what the God figure I know and my relationship to Him is like.

Having said that, I apologise if your experience of a parent was a negative one that could have contributed to your angst. - as that is commonly used these days to reject God as a father.

One other misunderstood fact from unbelievers is that Christianity is supposed to be ‘perfect’, solving all our problems and is the answer to all the good and the bad in the world. That was never promised but to the contrary Jesus said if you want to be my disciple, pick up your cross daily,… (then) follow me.

I hope and pray that you will find complete joy in Him.

What do "jesus" Aslan, the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, Daffy Duck and the Rugrats all have in common?

They are all essentially cartoon characters used to entertain and perhaps "educate" young children. They all belong to to the comic book and cartoon channels on TV.

I didnt like Narnia because it pushes the concept of large scale "redemptive" violence as the precurser for social transformation or ridding the world of "evil" which is of course impossible. Much like the possibility of "redemptive" violence being promoted and dramatised on the world stage by fundamentalist loonies of all kinds, including and especially many of the USA Christians who are promoting Narnia and even more so the the Passion. And by the Left Behind phenomenon wherby the "true believers" are expecting and praying for a "righteous cleansing" to occur as a precursor (or simultaneously with) the "rapture". Talk about large scale psychotic madness!

As for the Passion it was an exercise is sado-masochistic torture and brutal murder. In effect an horrific snuff film. Again it pushes the concept of "redemptive" violence. There is of course no such thing. Never has been and never will be.

But what do we really know of "jesus" except for his calling for open hearted love. Such a calling being the essential message/calling of all true religion. Which is very difficult to do/be in an incredibly violent world.

When I read the first few posts, I thought I had entered another world, but then I read Roberts post.

The reaction of the first posters, was almost sickening, but I held back and laughed. If this movie is anything like the passion, then I won't wastes my money. The Passion was one of the stupidest concoction of rubbish I have ever seen.

But at least it shows us how deeply the minds of some of the religious are entrapped within illusion.

The above nutters, god help us, oops blasphemed again. But then I suppose they have to have their fads, as there's no substance in their beleifs. So adding more fantasy, wouldn't be a problem for them.

Come on coach, show us where the truth is in these deeply moving movies that you all grovel over.

F.H. what would your opinion be of where unbelievers go after death, from your understanding. I know what the Koran says in part regarding that, but just like the bible, I find it ambiguous in that.

Why do some Christians (sooner rather than later) move toward a chastising surmon every time they speak about how to believe in 'their' god 'their' way? Indeed as a means to meet a need to control or frighten or cajole others into believing their many and often contesting definitions of God.

Each one seems to have a set of scriptural or theological arguments ready to thrust upon anyone who'll listen.

So my point is not so much that I do get irrated that some Christians get a little bit too carried away with selling their version of either individual for group God (or both) but that that is so darn inconsistent with 'belief'.

Are they trying to convince themselves as well as others?

By the way, I love Lamb chops and roasts.

Lamb of God etc etc

In your relationship with 'god' coach, do you recieve any correspondance from him? Anything at all?

Or is this relationship a fantasy between your conscious and your unconscious?

If you do hear from god in any way, and i am not talking about how he he gave you some sign when a car went past etc, i will become a believer in your religion right now.

I have had the religious experience in my life, and once the wool is taken away from your eyes, you can see things for what they realy are.

God might be out there, so how happy would he be with worshipping false idols?

Narnia has no bearing on christianity. I read it in year 4 at school and it had no christian influences. it does not now.

C'mon coach, you sure have plenty of love to give, let us see why.

A lamb with seven eyes and seven horns, Whoa !!
...what next a fish with three eyes, - no wait that was on the Simpsons !!

The message of Jesus is 'love each other', kick the merchants out of the temple, and grow your own food.

Firstly I would like to thank Mark for letting me know bout Narnia. My money will stay in my wallet now.

I have delved into almost all religions as I am a person that will not listen to sermons but will research all the history. I have found in my experience that all religions are based on “fear”. The fear of death, the fear of unhappiness and the fear of the unknown.

The Christians all know that they are losing their followers to today’s modern science. They also know that they need to update their teachings of old so they use now the media that everyone knows is the dominant way of suggestive thinking in today’s world.

Each religion I have researched all have more contradictions then factual truth. I have research much eastern ways and spent 6 years and still counting meditating with the belief that we are an entity being our own gods. The so called (God Feeling-When God Enters You) Is nothing more then a regulated Chi channel flowing inside you. I have experienced this first hand with Pennycostal and Prespeterian churches. In one case even making a Pastor rethink his beliefs after pushing Chi from myself to him. He then told me that this was the feeling of what he thought was god yet my Chi filled him with a stronger feeling. But am I stronger then his God, I would not think so but there you go.

As long as there is pain and suffering, the world will yield to a belief of a better life. Weren’t God’s supporters supposed to spread the word and not force it?
If we want to go to church and pray we will. Not when you visit our doors every week and forcing it down our throats. And remember more people have died in god’s name then everything else put together. What ever happened to love thy neighbor? Not rape thy children.

The days of being scared of God’s in the form of thunder are over. We need to look to the future. Hear on Earth & Nowhere else

Look I have enjoyed the fantasy stories of C S Lewis and there are some good ideas in them . There are some good social ideas in the Christian message , fellowship and community involvement in particular . But I have been a Life long Atheist and I find the comment by Coach rather sad .

"The problem with most unbelievers is not of intellectual or emotional convictions, although we witness a lot of that on OLO, the problem is not with the head but with the neck. Most people will not bend their neck and bow to their creator because they are too proud and/or ignorant of the consequences"

I wonder why you think that supplication to the deity is so necessary ? Some humility is good for all but who would really want to regress to a state of childhood for the rest of eternity after a life as an autonomous individual ? Give me oblivion before an eternal life on those terms .

"I encourage you to reflect quietly sifting through your beliefs, setting aside your pride, prejudice (qualified or not)… until you find that lost piece of yourself that used to obey, respect, love, follow, hang around, cuddle, play with your own dad and mom. This is but a crude hint of what the God figure I know and my relationship to Him is like."

. I am horrified by your description of your “relationship” with God Coach, learn to be an adult and take responsibility for this life , that you verify with the senses and the intellect. . Live this life with integrity and if there is anything after death you will have nothing to worry about but I I am right and there is nothing what a waste for you to have spent so much time in this life on your knees when you could have been living this life to the full rather than trying to buy a place in heaven.

Iain, after centuries that argument is a mere reflex among non-believers.

Jesus is the example par excellence of taking practical responsibility for one's life. Look at his effect in the world. The cross has a vertical and horizontal aspect. Without that relationship with the source, as Jesus demonstrated by praying to his Father after he'd healed or preached, we can't be as effective in the world.

Its true, if we can't find life here we won't find it in the afterlife. But Jesus said, "I came that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10).

The true escapism in western society is to not take account of the life of Jesus.

Godbless.

To all those who say 'Religion relies on fear'... and that Jesus was just a 'messenger of love'.

When it comes to "Religion" and fear.. yes, my wifes people regularly starved because of 'fear of the spirits' who spoke to them through a barking deer..or a particular bird.. telling them 'DONT harvest your crop this year'..and there.. due to FEAR.. it would stay untouched and rot and die or be simply eaten by monkeys and Birds.

Then.. JESUS came.. and reached into their hearts.. they received Him.. they joined their hearts to His life...they were born again, and delivered from the FEAR... now, instead of dying out as a race, they are abundant.. growing.. lawyers..doctors.. members of parliament.. entreprenuers.. bankers.. teachers... He guided them to set their SLAVES freeeeeeeeeee..... Halelujah ! :)

ISAIAH 53

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

In the New Testament we have:

1 John 3
16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us....

And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

CONCLUSION .. so, I don't quite know where the 'FEAR' angle comes from
except that in our heart of hearts, we know we have 'crossed' some line, where the event can never be changed, we can only be 'forgiven'. Yes, a glorious truth, we HAVE a Savior.

Re: BOAZ_David

Well I don’t know how you cannot understand about the fear. It is in every aspect of religion. Just like the insurgents preaching their disillusioned version of the Koran only remember what they want you only concentrate on the time when Jesus was alive forgetting the last 2000 years. Maybe a history lesson is in order as we have never been free from the fear of the world. Christians tell of eternal damnation if we don’t follow the words of god. They say that without god we will live lives of unhappiness and sorrow without god in our hearts. Fear IS the basis of religion. Maybe not intentially but the fear is there. Why else would you spend all your life praying if you aren’t scared of dying. You fear the unknown and fear leads to a wanting of knowledge. Religion base all their sermons on propaganda that they derive from all human life. Just like a fake fortune teller will foretell what appeals to all so they will never be fully wrong.

Well guess what now is now and not then, times have changed and whether we want to admit it or not, no-one in this world is truly free. Everyone is run by someone else somewhere along the line. How can living your whole life on your knees talking to someone you have never met (Physically) praying for him to right all your wrongs and look over you be free. I, as a Non-Christian believe that I am actually more free then yourself.

Yes before Jesus was around we feared nature and all that was unknown. But even when he was, the age of the scientist was already being born. It was them that disproved these myths as Science and forensic evidence still does today. Documents have shown that a lot of jesus’s life was covered up by the church. Like the fact that mary was around 14 when she fell pregnant. Even Joseph was married before and had son’s and daughters. Where in the bible is that. It isn’t. But records state different.

On behalf of all true believers, may I sincerely apologise to those of you who have been hurt and blinded by false teachings, committed in the name of Jesus Christ. We who are human make stupid mistakes every day of our lives, no matter how 'Christian' we are. Please don't judge God by our standards.

Jesus of Nazareth was a radical, who didn't stand by the popular teachings of his own religion. He was the 'lamb' supplied to be a sacrifice for our sins. But He was no 'lamb' in His actions and teachings. Please don't forget the final days, when Christ will return to fight the last battle of Armageddon. He will bring war upon this earth. Those who say He should not be linked with battle seem to forget this part of the Bible.

As far as Christians living in 'fear' of God, Jesus came to set us free from fear:

"God is love. When we take up permanent residence in a life of love, we live in God and God lives in us. This way, love has the run of the house, becomes at home and mature in us, so that we're free of worry on Judgment Day - our standing in the world is identical with Christ's. There is no room in love for fear. Well-formed love banishes fear. Since fear is crippling, a fearful life - fear of death, fear of judgment - is one not yet fully formed in love". (1 John 4:17-18, The Message version)

True believers don't fear God. True believers live in joy.

The sad thing for many is that they believe that there probably is no God. The joy in the life of a true Christian is knowing there is...

Religion is the opiate of the masses. This is one of the few things that Marx wrote that I agree with. However, his solution, socialism, is still another kind of opiate, and it has been proven to be even less effective as a way of improving the human condition.

The basic concepts of Christianity are not unique to it. One can still have moral responsibility, charity and love for one’s fellow man, without resorting to belief in a religion.

Here we are, standing on the edge of the expansion of the human race from this small planet into the Universe, and yet we still have these people promoting ideas about the origin of life, the Universe et al, which originated with primitive people thousands of years ago.

Nowadays, I submit that we understand so much more about life and the universe that we do not need mystical explanations.

Religion as a social/political force has caused, and is causing, so many problems, wars and intolerance, and has not basically altered human nature to a great degree.

I admit that faith in a religion is often a source of great comfort to people in difficult times, and so I don’t condemn anyone for wanting to believe. The problem with religion is that the central message of most religions is often corrupted by its adherents, and used to justify things that were never intended by the founder. Although, certain religions do have a lot of primitive concepts in their “book”, and a lot of really negative admonitions to its followers.

Religion should be a personal thing and not imposed on others.

Just some food for thought, Froggie...

In pre-Christian Europe there was certainly a sense of civic duty in places such as Rome and Greece, an ideal in striving for excellence, and there was a certain degree of concern for one's fellow citizen. There were not, however, ideals of moral goodness shown to all, concern for any man, be they citizen or alien, friend of foe, and a duty which is universal, being more powerful than any civic one.

The philosophical ideas derived from such movements as the Enlightenment, which at times sought to replace God with Reason, borrowed extremely heavily from their Christian heritage. How could a man of the Enlightenment defend the idea of people outside the group deserving rights, if he had not been exposed to the Christian culture which was the first in Europe to expose this? Without Christianity, Europe would be a barbarous, destructive place. The legacy of Rome and Greece live on because Christians saw in them an imperfect vision of a future civil order - for just as Vatican II can profess that religions contain elements of Truth, so can societies... for it is in our nature to seek that deeper Truth, and it is the observance of this truth that betters our world. Rome and Greece had effect, however, because these parochial happenings became part of the collective, catholic understanding of man

Whilst you can be a good person without being a Christian, it is only because of Christianity's previous effect.

Also, it is unfair to tarnish those of us - such as the Catholic church - who do not take a literal translation of the bible, and believe the Old Testment is useful for its explaination of God's relationship to man and the promise of salvation yet discard its cultural, not religious, guidance; just because heretics of Christianity may spout rubbish. To do so would be my equivalent of calling you a butcher because both you and Stalin were not religious.

"Religion as a social/political force has caused, and is causing, so many problems, wars and intolerance, and has not basically altered human nature to a great degree."

This statement is undoubtedly false. Europe was in a state of constant genocidal war before Christianity's arrival. It was barbarian in all senses of the word, with some imperfect beacons of civility in Rome and Greece. Human nature is not alterable - we can all descend to barbarism, and many religious people do - yet man is able to be civilised, and we can thank Christianity for that. Tolerance is only a thing of secular society because our secular society was born out a religious society which expoused tolerance.

We must remember that the worst butchers were irreligious - Mao, Hitler, Stalin - and that the Allies fought against them in "a war for Christian Europe"(Churchill). Though those professing religion are not blameless throughout history, for verily we are all human, they are less murderous than the barbarian, the pagan, and the wholly secular.

The Christian message is not that if you are religious that you will be a perfect and modal human being, but that you have the avenue to repent for past wrongs and seek to improve oneself. Fortunately, the secular tradition in the west has not given up on the brotherhood of man - although some secularists like fascists and marxists have - a gift given unconditionally by our Christian heritage, otherwise the good created by Christianity would be erased.

On the topic of Narnia... as a Child I found the books boring. If you want your kids to read stories of Christianity, start them on the stories of the saints... may I suggest Peter Claver to start... no violence, just humble service of the poor, dispossesed, and needy. The battle between absolute good v. evil is often preferred by those who believe in literal Biblical truth... the idea of constant, humble striving to make oneself a better person and thus bring about God's will is always preferable.

i like how people tell you how to get to the heaven they dont believe in. "just be good, live with integrity, love your neighbour ra ra ra"
If Christ came to set us free from the sin we can get ourselves out of He wasted His time.

But as we have seen from many of these posts, "men are willfully ignorant"

"they love the darkness rather than the light"

As for science. these poor guys are running all over the place trying to come up with as many ridiculas scenarios possible to explain why so much of the discoveries made point 'to' God rather than away.
Get informed guys stop writing the rubbish you hardly know. stop being "willfully ignorant" and open the eyes you were created with.

God is going to love you all the days of your life, you have no excuse, you have now been informed the rest is up to you. but in the end you need to know that its not going to be God who rejects you, it'll be you who regect Him.

Jesus didn't come into this world to make bad men good... but to give dead men life.
You can pick on all the 'Christians' you want. in the end (Which is probably closer than you think) its your call. Obvously this world is doing really really well by ignoring and detesting God.

Guess what.. the trees have wood in them...you've got as long as you live to find that out.

As for Aslan and Christ, i think you missed the point Mark, i dont think its meant to reflect the Bible perfectly nor Christ perfectly, sure there are parallels but dont get too picky about it.

As an atheist I'm starting from a position of neutrality on the issue of Aslan versus Jesus.

One is a fictional character intended to symbolise or allegorise God - this is very clear by the time one has read all seven Narnia books, and after all, Lewis was a keen Christian. The other is a major historical figure inevitably overlain by two millennia of glosses, legends, myths and, no doubt, occasional fabrication.

I found Aslan frustrating, never around when you need him until the Big Crunch. (But the Narnia books would have been a short story had he behaved otherwise.) He also develops, not in the Wardrobe book but later, an air of patronising sanctimony which irritated me no end. By book seven he's little more than Lewis' God in a lion suit.

Notwithstanding inevitable overlays in Jesus' story, which make it hard to ascertain the truth about him (fundamentalists will say, read the Bible; I have, but am not credulous enough to believe every word), it seems clear that he was a unique individual with a real message. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a pretty reasonable recipe, if only people would act on it. Certainly one does not need to be Christian to recognise its worth.

Actually, two relatively recent figures remind me of the "core" Jesus message. One was Mahatma Gandhi, who accomplished extraordinary things with his message of nonviolence before being murdered by a fanatic nominally of his own faith. The other is Nelson Mandela, who after 27 years in the hellhole at Robbin Island was able to come out and wreak, not vengeance, but the best healing his country could have hoped for. Imagine South Africa if he had called for vengeance against the racist oppressors; or the subcontinent if Gandhi had whipped up sectarianism to even worse levels instead of trying to hose it down in the face of the mulish obstinacy of both Muhammed Ali Jinnah and the Hindu extremists.

So, this may sound odd coming from an atheist, but JC beats Aslan, paws down.

Irony abounds in this post. Mark seems to put Jesus in a box based on only reading parts of the bible. As others have commented, Jesus is not a pacifist (e.g. clearing out the temple using a whip, coming in the last days to fight), nor is God (check the old testament some time).

Equating of violence with evil is the authors problem. It is a less biblical idea than anything in Narnia.

FYI, in the Lion, the witch and the wardrobe, Aslan does conquer by being the lamb (for edmund) and also fights in the last battle. Ultimately this is far more in line with Jesus' death on the cross and the 2nd coming than the authors shallow understanding.

Hi Alchemist,

“F.H. what would your opinion be of where unbelievers go after death, from your understanding”.

Belief and disbelief is a choice. It is not my concern who will end up where. In the Holy Quran God reserves the judgement right to Him alone ‘is judging on intent, hearts and deeds’.

I liked the movie by the way, I didn’t bother with the symbolism in it so it was easy to enjoy.

Peace,

I've read both of the books I like the Chronicles of Narnia it is more believable.
I mean a talking lion is one thing….

Numbat – Mel Gibson is devout practicing Catholic. He pushed Passion to be showed and displayed gory truths that not many people knew. We visit church and wear crosses around our necks with a man being tortured – slain as it were as BOTH lion and lamb.

Not sure about Lewis though so I’ll take your word. Although I dare say it probably helps – to an extent – to be Christian so to write about Christ in such vivid detail. Or at very least be intrigued by Christian ideals.

As for films as marketing ploys – I think these days it’s possible to market anything. Altruism/kindness are being tapped into by businesses with cunning, selfish expectation of return. Multinationals are the worst – look at MacDonalds cleverly tapping into family values, looking charitable with one thing in mind – money.

Churches risk following the same path although I’m not sure exactly what motive might be. Money? Maybe. Spreading the word of Christ? Perhaps. Doubtful Jesus would’ve approved of methods being used in any case.

Coach – I believe we live in a self-oriented society as opposed to an others-oriented one. The world today only turns to Jesus when they want something for themselves while ignoring the most important point of all – Jesus lived for others – without expectation of return.

Understand where you’re coming from with non-Christians but my opinion extends beyond. I’m equally saddened by Christians who self-righteously believe they’re somehow acting in the name of Jesus. It horrifies me when I see world leaders from any persuasion claiming guidance from above while calling for the invasion of another country. If one sees the necessity for violence then one must act alone.

Ted – it’s possible to see stories simply as that – stories. When parents read the three bears to kids they don’t expect them to believe there’s porridge-eating carnivores running around the forest terrorising little girls. But the story’s still valuable. It reflects a certain truth while at the same time serves an entertainment purpose. Most importantly it holds morals we may assimilate into life.

Alchemist – you did enter another world. It’s almost a cult, some Churches worse than others. I personally believe in Jesus as history portrays him. As with any role model I admire Jesus/teacher/humanitarian. I’m skeptical about the Church and its intentions as I believe most churches don’t project the image that Jesus would've wanted had he indeed been the savior of human kind.

I’ve been to church gatherings in the AOG (scary – zombies everywhere) and Mormons (very scary – plastic faced glazed-over looks mostly with Utah accents). I have had to continually make ‘I am busy’ excuses to individuals from various religions at my doorstep offering to mow my lawn and provide pamphlets simply so they could talk at me for half the day. I was baptised and confirmed Catholic, went to a Christian Brothers school, my parents were married in a Catholic church and were later divorced.

There are illusions everywhere Alchemist but somehow it all seems very fascinating. One must ask – as with any element of recorded history – what’s the ultimate truth?

Rainier – yes they’re trying to convince themselves but why? Is it the desire for eternal life when there’s no empirical evidence to suggest that such a thing exists? Is it for a portrayal of self that looks good to others – Christianly as it seems. I suppose both – to live Christian life on Earth is to save oneself from social failure. And as we transcend time and space the strategies used to prevent ourselves from being un-Christian wear very thin – presenting themselves in the form of increasingly translucent defense mechanisms (I am a good person) that appear irrational to others – particularly non-believers. As we approach death we cling more dearly to these defenses and try more desperately to convince others. As people age they attend church more often – usually visits from relentlessly boring retirement villages and as our only saving grace becomes death we long for it and are indeed grateful for it.

I hope for all our sakes it’s all real.

FH, “God reserves the judgement right to Him alone ‘is judging on intent, hearts and deeds’.” Thats where I find the ambiguity.

That being the case, there would be no need for religion or belief systems. It would be irrelevant to what you follow, or believe. Your souls destiny would be according to the application of your life in both thoughts and deeds, (“god is seeing and all knowing”).

Wouldn't god view those that don't believe, yet lead an ethical life, be the first to be taken into the holy place, as they haven't needed the crutch of religion to be god like.

Would not god be pissed off with those that follow a god religion and constantly threaten others with damnation for not believing. And wouldn't god be pissed off, that those followers use his name to try and suppress other views and dismiss the realties of the world, his world.

If God is such a good understanding loving dude, wouldn't he care for non believers more, because they are not hell bent on forcing beleifs on others, but go about life in a sensible non destructive way.

If God is what the religious say he is, then he would have no need for religion or followers. I do believe that jesus was totally against religion and expressed that in a violent manner, just like non believers have to at times when confronted by the violence of religion

DFXK, you need to learn the reality of the world, Hitler was a devout christian, his speeches and writings are full of biblical quotes. Some of his closest allies were the European churches. “good created by Christianity would be erased.” Name one verifiable good, that christianity has created.

Tubley, “I personally believe in Jesus as history portrays him” if you believed in Jesus as history really portrays him, then you wouldn't believe in religion. History portrays him in a totally different way to what the religious portray, if you ever decide to study theological history, you would see whats real and whats fantasy

The alchemist,

It is refreshing to read some resoning on your part – for a while it was just a broken 76 rpm broken record.

By separating Jesus from God you can never see the whole picture, and the puzzle remains just that.

It is because we cannot reach to God’s standard of perfection that it is impossible to co-exist with Him with our imperfections.

This is where ALL religions fail. They are without exception a do it for yourself guide for perfection – that simply will never pass the test with God.

That’s why from the beginning of creation (bear with me) God promised a redeemer: the lamb that is to take our place and make us perfect in God’s eyes.

Jesus is the ONLY way to God. Any other system, rules, or religion does not comply. That’s why Jesus is the name above all names,… to whom every knee shall bow – yes even yours Al and FH, every tongue will confess his name, He is the One who is coming to judge the world.

But there is another way and anyone can jump the queue by accepting his free gift of salvation right now (before the big rush later) and that is what we call being born anew, jumping from definite death into life eternal. This way final judgement is by-passed.

So the key is Jesus and has always been Jesus,… going back to Abraham … but that’s for another time…

Tubley: Any person can be a fervent protestant/catholic/ or whatever and yet may not be a Christian.
There is Christianity and there is religion which uses un-Biblical practices and doctrines. Neither Christ or any of the Apostles wore pretty frocks [well not the males]. Nor did they have burning handbags nor even candles.
To the athiests and God-haters: First you need to have a good look around.
The eye, ear and nose [smelling] How could these organs come by chance? If mindless, directionless evolution "made and developed" them, they would have to be perfect right from the beginning. A creature could not hobble around with a part formed eye,ear or nose. To think this is absolutely and completely absurd.
Look at the rest of creation and see the need for a creator, then and only then go to this Creator in faith.
numbat

oh man, here we go again.

Completely off topic.

Numbat, firstly you make the erroneous assumption that the organs you describe are an end product, perfect, complete. All life is in a continual state of change.

Secondly there are numerous current world examples of varying degrees of sight, from the most efficient animal eyes, through to the simple ability of plant cells to detect the direction of the sun, with a multitude of variations between those two extremes. it shouldn’t take much of a stretch of the intellect to understand that a bacterium, living in the 'primordial soup', would have a great competitive advantage if it could detect the direction of sunlight and therefore more nutrients, better than other species. As mulitcelled organisms evolved, the cells best adapted to detection of light become more and more specialised through numerous generations. It is currently suggested (I will try and find the study on the net) that the time from a cells ability to detect the direction of light to evolve to the first specialisation of cells into a primitive lens (as a conservative assumption of the rate of mutation and their selection) is 140,000 generations. a short period of time considering the billion years between the first recorded single celled organism and the first recorded multicelled organism.

there are plenty of animals living today that have much more primitive sensory organs, and those that have much superior, to us humans. there is no need for the eyes of moles to evolve to a simillar resolution to ours. evolution compensates in different ways.

Alchemist, completely agree. Many people's (religious and otherwise) perception of the nature of god seems, despite st Francis’s philosophical propositions, to be profoundly anthromorphogical, the 'intelligent designer' being a prime example. The designer, as opposed to creator, is a contradiction of omnipotence.

Alchemist,

“If God is such a good understanding loving dude, wouldn't he care for non believers more, because they are not hell bent on forcing beliefs on others, but go about life in a sensible non destructive way”

You are probably right. In Islam ‘believers’ have more than seventy definitions, the minimum being ‘those who remove harm off the road fearing for the safety of others”.

“Would not God be pissed off with those that follow a god religion and constantly threaten others with damnation for not believing”.

Agree with your statement above with a distinct difference:
- Tolerable: when someone would believe their religion is the BEST way of worship.
- Problematic: If someone believes that their religion is and should be the ONLY way of worship. This reflects all the spectrum from lack of experience, lack of judgement even to lack of confidence in their own faith.

Each and every disaster throughout history had a ‘problematic faithful’ behind it. By the way and to clarify, even ‘no-religion’ is a religion.

Peace,

I haven't seen or read Narnia so can't comment whether this Aslan makes a good parallel to the big J.
The Christian overtones wont deter me from seeing Narnia though. I enjoy a bit of religious themery in my movies, as it's always good for a bit of philosophical ponderings and introspection. I watched The Mission for the first time the other day, which is a great film that raises a similar question of to fight or to love, J.C is well represented there.
Another good argument would be whether Neo from The Matrix is a good representative of Buddha, although I haven't read anywhere if Sid Gotama was a martial arts expert so Neo might win that one.

coach, true that I never really new Jesus or God. If Jesus lived he is long dead and the christain God does not exist so in hindsight no chance of knowing either. Probably safer for you to assume that I did though because if I didn't then no one can be confident that they do. I'm not going to spend this post going through the history, rather accept that my "faith" was evangelical, born again etc, etc.

I do hold that if the body behaves badly the head is responsible. The god I believed in was a lot more that a traffic light, I'm surprised that your god is so small. I tend to see the situation more in the lines of a company where large numbers of staff are clearly corrupt/rude to customers etc, the management knows about and fails to act. An isolated employee doing the wrong thing where the management is not in a position to know about it is one thing but clearly that is not the case for the christian god.

True that I have no further interest in bending the neck to your god, your god does not warrent my respect or submission.

Strange that people who seek God within other cultures generally come up with different answers, perhaps you could reflect on that for a while.

The false images of God pushed by the church certainly encourage people to put more confidence in the Father God than is warranted. Maybe rather than assuming that bad parenting cause me to reject God you could consider that I discovered that the heavenly father would make one well known tennis players father seem like a role model of sanity and good parenting. Have the courage to face the fear and see your God for what he is and move on from it to the healthier life that awaits outside of his twisted control.

Sorry to all the christains who find my comments to coach offensive and who choose not to push your religion at others.

R0bert

As philosophical historians, we feel it is important to remind those who talk of the Enlghtenment as a progressive advancement of Christianity, must realise it did not have nmuch to do with faith or revelation, but the powers of reason first introduced to the West by Muslim scholars actually peddling what was known as Aristotelian insight.

Although St Thomas Aquinas did produce a huge thesis on this event, it seems our Holy churches have deliberately left it out of their sermons no doubt because the truthful facts that it was ancient Greek philosophy passed on by Muslim scholars who lifted Christianity out of an ever-deepening pit of despair as far as the future of our earth was concerned.

It is thus that many philosophers, not necessarily Christians do believe that Aquinas, despite his Sainthood, should also be regarded as one of the greatest of all philosophers. From the point of view of Schools of Humanity, it is also deeply important that during the late 18th century, the German Christian philosopher, Immanuel Kant, wrote a similar thesis to that of Aquinas, the churches neglecting it also because it advocated using reason as a balance to faith - as well as proof that there really is an Almighty God.

Kant, incidently was the great thinker who saw the need for a democratic Federation of Nations in a growing progressive world, so much scorned these days unfortunately by Americans, as well as by many of our Online contributors

Kaos
Before i became a Chistian i had absolutely no idea that i had no freedom in my life nor did i recognise the fear that was becomming rampant.
the Fear does not come from a fear of God but a fear of the unknown, how will my life pan out, what will my future hold, what will happen when i die.
Fear is a deep seeded concern for how the future will turn out.

Yes i agree that many religions, including some of those within Christianity have pushed the 'fear' button in many people hoping that will stir them into being good people.
Problem is we can never be 'good' enough. and that is the very message of Christianity. we are not expected to be Good enough, but to trust in the one who was good enough who bridged the gap for us.

It's impossible to be the perfect person that is required to relate to God, which is the very reason He died in our place.
The one thing that seperates the Christian faith from every religion in this world is God dieing to get to us, and not us killing ourselves to get to Him.
Problem is, as simple as that sounds it's too difficult for many to comprehend. Thats why Paul, the ex-pursecutor of Christians come apostle, said 'Gods wisdom is foolishness to men' and that 'Christ will be a stumbling block to many'

With respect to "documents" you refer to to get your information. do you think that its intelligent to trust a document that was written at least two hundred years after the event rather than the documents that were written within the life times of those who could refute the information written?

By the way, the very reason for the fall of man was their ridiculas belief that they could be 'as gods' your 'Chi' is only a deceptive and temporary feeling that does not give lasting peace, that can only come from the genuine article. A person who is genuinly born again has a permanant peace. dont be decieved.

Robert how dare you!

Do you think you have a monopoly on Job like railing against God?

Have I cursed God? Yes, but I'm not proud of it, I don't display it on bulletin boards.

If you understand Scripture you'll understand what Jesus meant about sinning against the Holy Spirit (retreating to sub Christian ways of thinking)

Maybe some prayer might be an antidote to that infernal voice you think so highly of.

Gird up your loins like a man.

Bushbred you scare me. ‘We’ who is we? Some cabal of truth monitors scanning the posts for accuracy? You speak as if you are a professional philosopher/historian but clearly aren’t. Your latest is a cobbling together of popular anti-Catholic pseudo-intellectual theories.

The idea that the Middle Ages was a period of negative growth of Europe is nonsense.

Rodney Stark’s book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success is required reading for you bushbred. Quoting from an excerpt

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=tqm4xd5mqkk5px43d968m19qmf4w3g5y

“Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."

"Christian faith in reason was influenced by Greek philosophy. But the more important fact is that Greek philosophy had little impact on Greek religions. [And rather than reason the] superiority of introspection dominated all of the other major world religions."

"The rise of capitalism also was a victory for church-inspired reason, since capi-talism is, in essence, the systematic and sustained application of reason to com-merce — something that first took place within the great monastic estates [beginning in the 10th century]"

". . . the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame re-ligious barriers to progress, especially those impeding science. Nonsense. The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians."

"Belgian scholar Henri Pirenne noted a large literature that 'established the fact that all of the essential features of capitalism — individual enterprise, advances in credit, commercial profits, speculation, etc. — are to be found from the 12th century on, in the city republics of Italy — Venice, Genoa, or Florence.'"

And I could go on. The silly theories you parrot, like you, are intellectual pretense.

Your anti-Americanism won’t fare much better.

Jesus lived life like a lion and died like a lamb. Battled the evil of the world with the Sword of God, and walked to His death with a resolved acceptance.

How can I answer a question that asks me to choose between Aslan and Jesus? I won’t even try. Jesus wins hands down and the books – if doing their job as a Christian themed set of stories – shouldn’t expect us to choose, but should point us toward Jesus.

What truly fascinates me about the responses, is the veiled contempt and subtle maligning of those who are anti-God and the earnest entreaties and heartfelt language of those who love Him.

If this question were about a Muslim god and Aslan would those who are anti offer the same response, or would they be more tolerant, perhaps more comfortable with the theme.

Why do God and Jesus arouse so much ire?

What has a church or a Christian done to each of you that your fellow man has not done in equal quantities? If your friend rips you off, or runs off with your woman, or steals your last dollar, are you as angry at him as you are at a Christian who shows his weakness?

I know that part of the anger is because Christians tells the world that the buck stops with them, that there is nothing better or greater or more important for our lives than this belief in Jesus. And then they turn around and commit the same sins as the people they are preaching to. Hyprocrites they become. Human they remain.

But you know what. God looks at each and every one of us – believers and non believers – the same. With an infinite love that overlooks our frailties and sees something greater inside us.

Realist asked
“ If you do hear from god in any way, and i am not talking about how he he gave you some sign when a car went past etc, i will become a believer in your religion right now.”

Realist – He said to say “Hi”.

ROB...where 'are' you ? :) I think I have an answer. You probably don't tweak to this yourself, but you have set yourself up as an authority and arbiter on how God should 'be'.

Its important that the appropriate tone be associated with this post, and I hope you will accept its 'speaking the truth in love'in a pastoral sense.

You have made the ultimate value judgement that all of us should refrain from. You have actually judged 'GOD' thereby setting yourself ABOVE Him....not so much the Christians. You have looked at 'the church' (only some manifestations of it of course) and you then decide "They are bad, so God is also bad".

You could have searched through Church history, and history of Missions, and seen the Christlike self sacrifice that 1000s of individuals have made over the centuries, and said "Yes.. indeed they walked with Him" but no, you decided only to look at the worst examples and then Judge God on this basis.

Romans 10:3 "Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness"

That is you in a nutshell.. 'established their own'...

I'm grateful to see brothers and sisters in Him speaking here, I share their joy in passing on the Grace that renewed us to others also.

Instead of looking at Azlan and the books, there might also be value in looking at C.S. Lewis own story, of antagonism towards Christianity, until God met him :)
That happens to all, sooner or later, and for some it will be as Savior, for others it will be as Judge, but all in Justice.

Rob.. which 'soil' are you (at the moment) in the Parable of the Sower ?

Martin Ibn Warriq, how dare I? If you don't want people expressing views about christianity and it's god then do something to get your fellow believers to show some respect for those who don't share your faith. Personally I have had an absolute gut-full of the continual pushing of christianity by some on this site along with their bashing of other faiths (or lack thereof).

Your friend coach and others on this site are very consistant with their denegration of others beliefs and their advocacy of ideas which I strongly disagree with. I have responded directly to comments made by coach with my own views on the matters. The last post was pretty much a point for point response to coaches response to my earlier post.

If your god has an issue with my views he is welcome to take the matter up with me (as is anybody elses god). Better yet maybe a genuine revival in the modern church or some Ananias and Sapphira type cleansing. Don't tell me about your faith, let me see it in the way you live (or post) and let me ask what you have got that I have not got.

In the mean time I don't need the followers of any such god telling me how miserable I am for not knowing their god or how I deserve to suffer an eternity of torment for not accepting their gods wonderfull plan of salvation for my life.

Maybe you could put away childish things, get over your sad beliefs and take responsibility for your own life. Not sure I want to gird my loins, that sounds dangerous.

Again for those christains who do treat others with some respect my apologies if you feel caught in the crossfire. I generally don't share my views about the christain faith and it's god with christains unless they push the point and I have maintained close friendships with a number of evangelical christians who are able to resist the temptation to tell me what I have to believe. Likewise for people of other faiths.

R0bert

RObert,

Your analogy of God as the c.e.o. of a rotten company clearly shows your misunderstanding of basic doctrine and relationship of the creator to His creation. My intension is to reason with you as I respect your opinions on OLO.

1. God created the universe
2. He created humans in his image
3. He created us with freedom of choice

So even though God knows each one of us intimately, He does not micromanage us as slaves, employees, or robots. Therefore He is not ‘responsible’ for our choices. We make a mess of things that does not change who God is. We cannot bring Him down to our level to blame Him for our stupidity.

Furthermore, He knows very well that humans fall short of His perfect standard. As much as it hurts Him He allows us to fall and fail not because of His incapability to intervene – but because of our selfish desire to be ‘the boss’ He wants to demonstrate how futile that is. (Hence the need for Jesus).

Allow me another car comparison - a four year old child on his dad’s lap stirring the car believing all along that he/she could drive.

I will dismiss all your closed fist display of anger and lack of respect at the god you don’t know. It is but another reflection of your insecurity and false pretence at “I’m ok therefore I don’t need a god to rule my life”. That’s understandable. (No patronising intended).

One question remains:
“…, rather accept that my "faith" was evangelical, born again etc, etc.”

Please clarify this for me – did you mean you come from an evangelical background or you where once a born again evangelical?

Coach

Much as I agree with your beliefs and share your love of our God, I have to say that the following comment to Robert will probably undo any good comments you have included. Jesus did not disrespect his accusers, his 'enemies', the unbelievers and any others who did not follow Him. I would think to follow His lead should be our goal.

" I will dismiss all your closed fist display of anger and lack of respect at the god you don’t know. It is but another reflection of your insecurity and false pretence at “I’m ok therefore I don’t need a god to rule my life”. That’s understandable. (No patronising intended). "

Mark,
I agree with you about violence. It is said to be the last resort of the incompetent and it always leaves more questions and confusion in it's wake than anything else.

But I disagree with you completely about Jesus. He was no lamb. He lived his life in violent times when force decided the outcome in most affairs. Yes, he used violence on the moneylenders in the temple - but only to make a point. And that didn't actually resolve anything. What did resolve things for many people after him was that he had the courage of his convictions and stayed the course despite all temptation to waver. That is what convinces people ever since that what he stood for was important. That is what inspires people.

Who today can say they don't give in to temptation and take the easier path?

No matter what you think about Jesus, it's clear he was a lion among men and it is this courage, conviction and leadership that we should strive to emulate.

steve42

Boaz, some explanations from you, please.

"You have made the ultimate value judgement that all of us should refrain from. You have actually judged 'GOD' thereby setting yourself ABOVE Him...."

This is a very specific interpretation of the word "judge".

We are all entitled to "judge" each other, the Queen, Bill Gates, the Pope etc. in the sense that we assess, and express an opinion. That act in no way sets us as "above" the object of judgement, merely demonstrates our ability to think, weigh, and draw conclusions.

"Being judgemental" is generally regarded to be a bad thing, but only because the very phrase itself is used in a derogatory or pejorative sense. Judging, as in examining evidence and coming to a conclusion based upon that evidence is a good thing, demonstrating a willingness to engage the mind in a constructive manner.

I think you know this, but choose to indulge yourself in this unproductive form of semantic masturbation because it somehow makes you feel good.

Your fellow evangelists on this forum do the same thing. Is there a school you all go to that teaches you these verbal tics? They are all remarkably similar in their construction and deployment.

For what it is worth, I wasn't exposed to C S Lewis as a child, but my two older kids thought the stories were ok. Neither of them said "oh look, isn't Aslan like Jesus!", but that is probably because they are only peripherally aware of the Bible stories.

The film, however, I thought was appalling. I went with my twelve year-old, who quite enjoyed it (the beavers cracked him up), but he didn't make the connection either. I guess you have to be pre-sensitized, which rather defeats its point as Christian propaganda, if that is what it was intended to be.

Similarly, Mark Hurst's article only makes sense if you care one way or the other. Manufacturing some kind of spiritual message, then concocting an "is it black or white?" argument from a bunch of anthropomorphic cartoon characters seems the height of pointlessness.

Dear Rob
I can identify with your feeling of being pressured from the likes of myself and others. I hope you can also appreciate that when you make pronouncements about the Creator, that we will put forth the case on which our lives stand. I'm sure that in such efforts we will have 'Moses Moments' where instead of just 'touching' the rock with his rod as God instructed him, to bring water out for the Israelites, we do what he did -WHACKED it a few times.. he exceeded the boundaries set by God.
We are human... sanctification is not overnight, yes, we sometimes 'whack' and to the extent that we do or have, humble apologies.

Dear Pericles
My eyes almost fell out of their sockets when I arrived at the 'semantic masturbation' phrase..I thought I'd patented that phrase, but then I recalled that mine was 'Mutual intellectual masturbation' which I've used in connection with the eLitist Latte Left in Lygon Street Cafes. So, yours is safe :)

In regard to Roberts comments, I was just making what I thought should have been an obvious point, about what he was doing. Rob was saying "I looked, I saw, I experienced...and after a time, I rejected -on the grounds of my own view of how God should be" (in effect)

This is quite different from the likes of Alchemist who is just a broken record and torrent of rhetoric. Its different from Kenny, who just dismisses Christians as loonies, or various others who have a similar view.

On the Narnia books, I haven't read them. Can't get my head into that type of thing. The Bible is far more living and real to me. I find "Pseudo Christian" stories never make the grade, and are 'off' in some way or other.

OFF TOPIC I note with keen interest that PM Howard is giving a Major Speech on "National Identity" today ! Bravo ! Hmm.. does he have 'people' monitoring OLO or are we in fact speaking for a large majority that coalition polling points to ?

Reading these posts from the devout (devoid) reminded me of the time I overheard the church committee commenting on how someone didn't understand the bible, and was a bad christian. My father, a deacon at the time told them they reminded him of the passengers of a plane telling the pilot how to fly it, whilst they had never been in the cockpit, just sat outside the closed cockpit door.

You all try to express love, but don't understand it, the venom of you fears overwhelms you, allowing your true nature to be revealed. I doubt there is one of you that has ever made an attempt to learn the real history of your beliefs, you just sit in the pews glowing in your ignorance.

I constantly put forward historical fact, but you ignore it and stick to your superstitious nonsense. My knowledge comes from church documents, not plagiarised yank evangelistic garbage.

I don't need to google, I have a life time of study and travel to support me, plus many years within the church. The only one that seems to have any idea is philo, the rest of you are just sad empty husks drained by your delusional fears.

The Catholic church recently issued a decree stating that ID, was not in line with scripture. Any fool that has read the original texts, can see that.

There isn't one of you that has any idea of the true nature of the man, nor life at the time. You have two very short periods of time to base your hypocrisy on and neglect all the factual evidence that shows everything in its true light.

You believe every aspect of life comes from your god, but your examples show that you refuse to live that way. Why don't you use the holy anointing oil that is described in the old Hebrew bible, used by jesus and the apostles. It would probably give you a better understanding of where you are at.

Bd broken records just go round and repeat, thats a religious concept designed to brainwash. Reality is progressive not stagnant.

Pericles

The Judging you talk about is only a good thing in relation to what is done.

We cant just use our limited and flawed logic (particularly with the relativeistic ideas of today)to discern what someone intends to do or why someone did this or that, whether it's showing up late for dinner or stealing a fridge.

I biblical terms we are to judge the fruit and not the heart, because 'only God can know the heart of men'.

How wise this piece of information is, most of the problems we have with friends/family and associates is because we judge the intent of the heart and not the fruit.

For example we are to judge if someone steals something and know that it's wrong, and that that person is a thief, but it's wrong to percieve from their appearance or the side of the tracks they live on or their financial position that the person is a theif.

Its a clear moral principle and wisdom that can only come from the mind that knows His creation and not from secular humanism

its not easy being:Show us a creature that is evidently in the throes of change - boy you do have faith!
RObert:"Show respect for those who don't follow your belief" Good advice - now follow it yourself.
pericles: We are to judge but not condemn.
The alchemist: "bad broken record just etc" describes you to a T
You God-haters who do not acknowledge so do not know God yet you "know?" so-o-o-o much about Him - amazing.
As for the person who rants on about the super drug or holy oil that Jesus used - you do have a vivid imagination. numbat

Mark - a good and timely intervention in the bland world of Christian commentary on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe movie. I especially liked the concluding paragraphs.

C.S. Lewis did, however, cast his Aslan character in more than one guise, and several times refers to him as a Lamb (e.g. in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Aslan appears as a Lamb to Edmund, Eustace and Lucy; and in The Last Battle, the Lamb observes that Narnia is Aslan's and Calormen is Tash's - an intriguing statement in itself - and is identified as Aslan).

See Paul Ford, Companion to Narnia (2005 edition), pp. 280-281, and also pp. 480-482.

Perhaps the rule of God is best portrayed (if we're limited to animals) by a lion-like lamb - as Revelation 5:5-6 suggests?

Same old same old, edi and numbat. Verbal calisthenics, content-free.

edi provides a mysterious but ultimately impenetrable explication of my post on judgement.

>>We cant just use our limited and flawed logic... to discern what someone intends to do... I [sic] biblical terms we are to judge the fruit and not the heart, because 'only God can know the heart of men'.<<

What exactly does this mean, edi? What *can* we use our "limited and flawed logic" for? Why do we possess it in the first place, if not to puzzle out the secrets of our being and our universe?

And numbat, for crying out loud..

>>pericles: We are to judge but not condemn.<<

..who on earth said anything about condemning anybody? Judgement, as in the phrase "use your judgement", was twisted by Boaz to mean "stand in judgement over", from which he devised a reproach to RObert, who apparently had the temerity to use his brain, and come to his own conclusion. Your interjection is little more than the end result of the semantic self-gratification I spoke to Boaz about.

The use of a careful selection of words and phrases to act as "dog-whistles", simply to generate some form of emotional - as opposed to intellectual - reaction, is one of the major tools of the christian evangelist. It helps them avoid any thought process, as the conflict between what their brain tells them, and their religion teaches them, would confuse beyond endurance.

Personally I blame James and his Authorized Edition. It encourages believers to speak and write a form of sub-Nostradamus dialect, that enables them to phrase statements in a numinous fashion, one that cannot be contradicted by anyone not using the same language.

Tricky, but ultimately fruitless, as they are condemned to live in the same world as the rest of us folk, who choose to think for themselves.

STOP PRESS:

The Australian New Muslim Association has challenged Dr Peter Barnes* to a series of three debates at Bankstown Town Hall (Sydney)

The dates and topics are:

1. Friday 18 Feb - The Word of God: the Bible or the Qur’an?
2. Saturday 19 Feb - God’s man: Jesus or Mohammad?
3. Friday 24 Feb - Salvation: Grace in Christ or the five pillars of Islam?

There will be both Christian and Islamic bookstalls, and we are hoping that there will be supper afterwards. The cost will probably be about $5.

All meetings start at 7.00 p.m. There will be opportunity for questions.

Please pray for this, and support it if you possibly can.

*Dr Peter Barnes, pebarnes@ezylink.net.au is a minister at the Bankstown Presbyterian Church, lecturer in Church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre and member of the Historical Records and Library Committee of the NSW General Assembly.

Coach,

The ANMA don't know anything about that!
I find it hard to believe for Muslims to initiate 'Mohamed or Jesus' as in our faith we can't differentiate between prophets.

Are you sure it is not one of those 'churchomercials' to lure the faithful? that $5.- thingy with dinner is a bit....hmmm..

Grow up!

numbat, if I've offended you as a non participant in coaches denigration of non christians as I attempt to rebut his comments I apologise for doing so.

I have attempted to make it clear that I prefer not to expose christains to my views. I would strongly prefer that coach, BD and others stop attempting to use the forum to push their religious views, if that occurs I will quite happily keep my own views about the christain God and church to the company of consenting adults.

As mentioned previously I have attempted to limit my responses to points raised by others - no agenda here to try and force others to give up their faith however I am willing to make suggestions/demands of those who make demands of me. So please feel free to believe in your God, enjoy your church but accept that while your co-believers continue to express their condemnation of those of us who do not share that belief a response to those claims is valid.

coach, whilst I now consider it was delusion I formerly believed my self to be a born again evangelical christian. I accept that christain theology gives space for free will but I also believe that it claims that Jesus is the head of the church, that the Holy Spirit indwells believers and that the christain God has previously exercised disciplinary authority on earth - Aron's sons and others in the OT, Ananias and Sapphira, the guy who's body was being turned over to Satan etc. My understanding is that a christain is someone who has amongst otherthings agreed to surrender their life to the authority of the christain God. The christain God has reportedly previously acted using that authority in a fairly direct manner. If the christian gospel is truth the only way the rest of us will know it is if the church reflects the character of it's head.

BD, back to you in another post.

R0bert

Coach et al

If god is real, and is as you say he is, and loves me and wants me to believe in him and do as he says and therefore be saved, why does he not send me a sign? I will accept the mysterious appearance of a nice cold bottle of beer on the table outside. This should be well within his power.

(nervously goes outside and checks table)

Sorry, no beer.

What's going on? I suppose the answer is that god is mighty and moves in mysterious ways and I must just have faith and believe and not question or judge or decide what is right or wrong for myself..Or is it that its all a big fantasy to make some people feel better about themselves..after all "Having no assurance of salvation and no real hope is terrifying stuff". Almost as terrifying as a whole world full of rampant religous fundamentalists!

DFXK: Hitler was born into a Roman Catholic Family, attended a Roman Catholic school and seriously considered becoming a priest. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. The German people were also Christians - they voted for him and they also carried out his commands.

The persecution of the Jews was not new in Germany or in Europe. The Nazis were simply the ones that raised the level of persecution onto an industrial scale. The Jews were persecuted because they were considered the murderers of Christ. The persecution included the Inquisition of Spain that drove all Jews out of that country and the Albigensian crusade that massacred one third of the people in the south of France for being (among other things) harbourers of the Jews. There is hardly a Christian country that did not massacre, torture or at least adopt measures that marginalised Jews in society. The pope not only condoned this treatment of the Jews - he often ordered it. And Hitler at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926 said: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

Germany's ally, Italy, is a Roman Catholic country. The pope came out in public support of Hitler describing Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture."

Christianity has a bloody history of massacre and torture of pagans and heretics and it is steeped in their blood. The pope's tendency of giving the lands of pagans or heretics to any Christian that would go to war against them meant that there was more than a millenia of opportunists that flocked to the Christian Banner in order to go into peaceful lands where they massacred men, women and children.

Edi: "The one thing that seperates the Christian faith from every religion in this world is God dieing to get to us, and not us killing ourselves to get to Him."

er . . . actually no. Woden/Odin, Dionysios and Tammuz all came to earth as a man, died for our sins and were resurrected. Among others - common theme that.

BD, I too will put forward the case on which my life stands when I respond to claims about my life, your creator and the reasons I choose to reject those claims. I think you got that bit already but thought I should make sure the point was clear. I think many of the posts go a lot further than wacking the rock a bit hard, maybe a bit to much buy into the Lion rather than the Lamb.

I would suggest that all of us who have looked for God judge according to how we think God should be. The only exceptions are those who have never heard of more than one concept of God. I assume that you have decided that God is not a crude statue in a hut in the jungle somewhere and that God is not money and that God is not one of a host of other Gods invented by human beings. It is necessary and valid for us to determine if a concept of God is viable and reasonable, those decisions will generally reflect the culture we are raised in. The crude statue in the mud hut is just as valid a choice for God as the christain God if our own understandings of what God should be do not come into play. Not arrogance or false presumption, rather a necessary step which I see no reason to exempt the christain God from.

R0bert

Rob
I looked back on all the posts to this thread and found the starting point for the responses which seem to concern u.

Rob said:
"Mark talks about a much better Jesus than the modern church generally talks about, if I heard about his Jesus and did not know about that Jesus aceptance of his fathers violent past and the poor job that Jesus does running his church I could almost like him."

You made 3 claims here in a public forum.

1/ God is 'violent'
2/ Jesus accepted that 'violence'.
3/ Jesus is doing a lousy job of 'running' His church.

I would call that a lot more than 'Christian bashing' :) it is without question 'God bashing'.

It is a sure and certain responsibility for a believer to respond to such things with 'reverencing Christ in our hearts and making a defense for the hope that is in us, yet with gentleness and kindness'
(1Peter 3.15)

'speaking the truth in love' does not mean we will hold back from pointing out the implications of such a position as you put forward. In the same way you were free to state such things, you are free to 'pass' on the word you hear from us. That is entirely between you and the Almighty.

Your frequent mentions of 'violent' God, sends the message about some deep seated issue in your own life, that I pray you will be able to resolve one day. God is love, and He is also Just.

<<19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?>>' Rom 9

What else can one say, having met the Risen Lord......He began the day as Saul, a murderer of men, women and children, he ended it as Paul...saying "For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain"

May we all come to that point in our lives.

Very happy hellothere, that you have encountered the very first question that strikes someone contemplating God. You are in for a grand journey.

Now being a very ancient question there are some wonderful answers built on over centuries by many great thinkers, in fact most of western philosophy/theology is about big questions like that.

If God is compulsorily present to us, like answering the demand for a miracle, humans would not be free, we would become like robots. Additionally, in the Gospels demons recognize Jesus, they need no proof of God yet still choose their depravity and wickedness despite originally knowing what the good entails.

What kind of knowledge do you really want?

If your wife trusts you not bcz she has absolute certainty but bcz of a reasonable faith in you we can say she deserves moral approbation.

Perhaps God would like something similar from us.

God doesn’t desire blind faith but as above faith based on reasonable evidence.

God says he is “gentle and humble in spirit” and that “the pure in heart will see God” .So how about being humble enough to study and learn about Jesus, instead of being tempted to supercilious, condescending posts.

You might learn how easy it is for humans to spread lies, to pervert and thwart goodness. You might learn than God can love even me, even me!

Christians know better than anyone how dependent they are on God’s mercy, and how shockingly easy it is to sin “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” Philippians 2:12-13. To imply belief is escapism – well the true escapism is not properly looking at Jesus’ life.

The label of 'fundamentalism' is easily applied to you hellothere.

Aziliz

Why do you treat the participants in this forum with contempt? What you've written doesn’t come from a heart desiring to inform, it's motivated by hatred.

(Kolakowski)
“Desire for hatred is explained by the fact that it inwardly destroys those who hate. Since hatred occupies, at least in its complete form, the entire human spiritual sphere in that it is similar to love, it could appear as a means to integrate the personality. But the opposite is the case.

Hatred’s pure negativity (your post), paralyses all human communication, destroys the inner unity of personality, and hence it is irreplaceable as a means to disarm the human soul.

The all consuming energy of hatred renders interchange impossible; and thus it disintegrates me spiritually, even before I am able to disintegrate my enemy.

In this sense to live in hatred is to live in death, hatred continuously dominates the mind, becomes doubly degenerated self necrophilic passion.

The continuous message of totalitarianism asserts “You are perfect, they are perfectly depraved. You would have lived in paradise, if the malice of your enemies had not prevented it”

If we hate we’re uncritical toward ourselves and toward the object of our hatred; for to be critical means to differentiate, and hatred renders us incapable of differentiation. It pits our total rightness against the total, absolute, and incurable baseness of others.

This is the secret weapon of totalitarianism; to poison the entire mental fabric of human beings with hatred, and thus to rob them of their dignity.

Hating includes nothing like solidarity; ppl who hate don’t become friends because they share a detested enemy. Except for moments of fighting, they remain alien or hostile to each other.

It may be true that many of us cannot rid ourselves of cowardice except by means of fanaticism and self inflicted blindness.” But you must try Aziliz.

I’ll leave you to read Wikipedia’s quotes from Jewish leaders about PiusXII. And leave you to read the truth about Hitler’s so called Christianity.

Aziliz you won’t be worth talking to, you have started very poorly.

Martin Ibn Warriq

After wading through your lecture on hatred, I went back to read what Aziliz had actually written. He/she had simply made an observation that there have been other tales of people dying for others' sins. Nowhere did I see any hatred.

Furthermore, you stated that "Aziliz you won’t be worth talking to, you have started very poorly" this is a very judgemental thing to say to another.

I can't say whether Aziliz is worth talking to or not - a 2 line post does not reveal sufficient information from which to make a judgement.

Does not Christianity teach humility? If so, arrogance is hardly something to which a Christian should aspire.

It is useless to argue about religion with religious people- they operate from a completely different paradigm from those who prefer to use their logic and rational observation.
The crux of the matter is that they operate on "faith" in the existence of their God, and subsequent manifestations.
Some say that they have a "personal relationship" with God- by this I think they mean that they actually have conversations with God.
I can't say whether God exists or not. I have no objective information about that.
Certainly it is difficult, if not impossible to explain the existence of the Universe. Whether this implies a "God" I cannot say-I simply don't know.
It would really be nice to have the certainty that religious people have. God has never literally "spoken" to me, and I've been on the Earth long enough.
All I can see is that religion has been used over the centuries to justify horrendous injustices and wars. It has also been responsible for good things too. So on balance, I'd say that it all boils down to human nature in the end. Religion really hasn't made much difference, either way. On the other hand, religion can be used, like any ideology, by some of its proponents to cause a lot of trouble.
You don't have to be religious to be a good person and to do right by your fellow man.
This subject is useless to discuss, because you will never change the opinion of the religious people, and those who are rational will not change their opinion either.
I personally am quite happy for people to be religious if they want to be, as long as it makes them happy. Why not? I just hope they can be aware of what it can lead them to do, as evidenced by history, and make sure that their actions are not harmful to other people.

Froggie

I agree with you 100%, which is precisely why I have refrained from posting much on this thread.

However, Martin's diatribe to Aziliz was so completely over the top, I just couldn't help myself.

The common theme appears to be that those who do not believe exactly the same way as themselves are treated with contempt and are condemned. Look at R0bert, who was really trying to say "hey, my POV is as valid as yours", that's all.

I am completely at a loss to understand the fundamentalist - I guess they don't want any converts - if they did one would expect them to show a little consideration for the POV's of others.

Cheers

BD, I noticed a distinct change of subject in the post you addressed to me this morning. Is the reality that we all use our understanding of what God should be to determine the validity of claims about a particular God a topic you’d rather avoid. I can understand why you might not prefer to explore that particular concept.

From my perspective what sparked the particular sub-plot to this thread was coaches description of the horrid misery of the life of a non-christain

“I was reflecting over the weekend on how our non-Christian friends must feel and live outside Jesus’ family; putting myself in their moccasins for a minute… one long minute… I was horrified.” Etc.

I attempted to respond to coaches obvious desire to understand the view point of a non-christain who has put some effort into these issues, he seemed to have put the moccasins on over his christian romper stomper boots. The discussion has flowed from that point.

Deep seated issues about a violent god – I don’t think so, just as you choose to reject concepts of god which are beneath your own ideals and standards so I reject the concept of a god who will order the slaughter of men, women, children, babes in arms etc yet doesn’t take action against those claiming to follow him who molest children. A god who will kill a couple of young guys for mixing up the wrong type of incense as they seek to worship him but allows the US televangelist industry to flourish.

Generally I take no delight in attacking christians - occasional exceptions :), if your God exists the failure of the church to show his nature is the failure of that God to empower his people to live as they should and to discipline those who claim his name but refuse to live as they should. If he does not exist one of the proofs is the nature of the church and the reality that those who make up the church are on average no better or worse than the rest of humanity.

R0bert

Think about this. Look how much we have advanced with technology in the last 30-50 years. We all know there is literally billions of Suns out there. Its most likely that a lot of the suns would also be large enough to pull other planets into it’s gravity field thus creating other Solar Systems. Then most of those systems will have a planet that is not to far from it’s sun but also not to close. Meaning just right conditions like on our earth to birth and sustain “Life”. Now say that that planet that does have life also has intelligent life. (This cannot be discarded without denying the existence of our own intellect). Then imagine that that planet is tens of thousands of years older then our own planet and its progress through evolution. Again, so much advancement has happened in the last 30-50 years and will be continual with the eventuality of riding a shuttle in space just like riding a bus (You know what I’m getting at). So they are advanced enough that they have conquered space travel and eventually stumble over our planet. Our planet is very primitive at that stage and new experiences are everyday occurrences so nothing is disregarded. They meet many of these space men “That come from the Heavens” (Might be what they called their Home planet) and through folk law and stories they have lived on. A very primitive Stephen King author writes a great book about it. Like all Journo’s and Authors the truth is stretched for a good read. But then he dies. The book is lost but found much later by an early fundamental extremist with wild views of social oppression and blackmail and start's to preach the book. The rest is history.

(Before I am Drawn and Quartered and hosed with holy water this is just a theory. The first half bout the evolutionary advantage by “Aliens” and their discovery of earth I DO ponder. The rest was just a bit of comic relief but might just be true. Remember what Fox Mulder Said….)

You are not a mind (or heart) reader Martin. My post was intended to inform and not out of hatred. The point wasn't that Christians were evil, the point was that they have done absolutely horrendous things in the name of God, just like the Hindus, Moslems, Pagans, Buddhists, etc and just as others have done in the name of a political ideal. This was to counteract the posts that indicated that Christianity had *only* been a force for good historically.

As for your diatribe about hatred - I agree with you. And with Christianity the very fact that it is "totalitarian" in its exclusivity, that it believes that "they are perfect and others are perfectly depraved" is my objection to it. You are quite right - this breeds hatred and self-conceit.

In regards to the persecution of the Jews and Pagans I would point you towards http://www.religioustolerance.org. You will find that it can quote the church councils and the papal bulls and the laws of christian political leaders throughout history in a properly documented way. They also have a very balanced report on Pope Pius XII - whom, incidently, I did not accuse of anti-semitism.

For a good site on Hitler's religious leaning go to http://web.archive.org/web/20030813020830/http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html which is a list of quotes from Hitler. Beware of the book "Hitler's Table Talk" which is disputed - http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

Hitler's germany actually persecuted pagans and many minor cults including: Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft (the main Germanic Pagan Movement), Asatruers (Norse Pagans), Gypsies, Freemasons, Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Seven Day Adventists, Scientologists, etc which hardly makes the Nazis pagan sympathisers. On the contrary the Roman Catholic church had an agreement with Hitler called the Reichskonkordat that assured that the Roman Catholic Religion would not be persecuted but supported. This is actually a reversal of earlier policies on the Roman Catholic Church by previous administrations so stands out as particular support by Hitler. Hitler was a Roman Catholic with a Germanic slant.

Aziliz.
you need to look closer at what you write:

"Christianity" is one term you need to define much more tightly before 'blaming' it by proxy via 'Christians' for the 'evil' which you mention as being perpetrated in its name.

The term arose first in Antioch some short few years after Christs resurrection. The followers of Christ were called 'Christians', it was probably a derogatory name at first.

That name in turn, is linked back to Christ Himself and His teaching, death and resurrection.

You must separate things 'said to be done' in the name of a faith, from the actual teaching/doctrines of that faith. Where you see a discrepancy between the faith, and the behavior of its supposed followers, please condemn the followers, for NOT FOLLOWING the the faith rather than condemn the faith itself.

Rob. you mentioned 'Why does God allow' and then you follow with the names of various tyrants etc.. but 2 things. Look around you now, do you see those major tryants in power? (Hitler.. Mussolini.. Tojo/Jap militarists, Pol Pot....) *looks around*... nope.. can't see them.

Put yourself in Pauls shoes at Lystra "Lord.. whyyyyy *OUCH*are u *yEOWWWWWW*,allowing these *arrrrgh* people to STONE me now ? you called *OUCCCCCCH* me to yourself.. u appointed *AAAAAAARGH* me to proclaim *GEE THAT ONE HURT* you to the world.. does it have *YEEEOWW* to be like THIS? *THUD*

Bruised...bloodied...left for dead....

ACTS 14
19Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead. 20But after the disciples had gathered around him, he got up and went back into the city.

Just priot to this incident. God had healed a cripple through him... and he had seen the power of the God who called him. But now.. he is being stoned..

God is glorified in our weakness and our faithfulness during trials.
Our weakness, points to His grace and sustaining strength.

Aziliz

Ahhh no.. not exactly, all those mentioned above were post Christ and any borrowing for this type of notion would be from these individuals and not from Christ.

Besides i was referring to the religions of today that have more than a handfull of Followers.

Its also very important when you speak of crimes perpetrated in the name of any religion that you consider the teachings of the religion itself.

Unlike the crimes commited in the name of Islam, which went directly inline with the teachings of Mohamed, particularly with the abrogated texts, the crimes in the name of Christianity went dirreclty against the teaching of Christ.

At no place does Jesus ask us to 'Kill the infadel' or any such like.
Christians themselves get critisised for not 'loving the enemy'
What we actually see is a dramatic distortion of what the Christian faith is about.

We have every right to comdem this behavior, and God himself will also deal dramatically with those who distort His word.

Rob, on your last paragraph posted on the 25th, i totally agree with you.

The biggest problem within the Church is that many dont 'work to the out side the change that has occurred on the inside' i can tell you first hand that this is the biggest struggle with every pastor in the church.
It is this very item that prevents most people from believing in Christianity.
Yet having said that it is interesting how so many non-Christians know what they should expect from Christians.
I have personaly said to the congregation that we are all 'personal billboards for Christ' The problem is this 'surrendering' you speak of is a work in progress.
By sincerely asking Christ in to your life gives you salvation, becasue you have repented from non belief.
But with so many distractions placed as obsticles in our lives, many people can and do backslide.

Yet the promises is if you sincerely seek God you will find Him.

Alchemist/Aziliz

Hitler, a devout Christian?? Are you guys OK?

Although Hitler was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and kept his formal ties with the church for his own political ends, he abandoned any pretence of faith at an early age. He described himself as “a total pagan”, and called Christianity “the hardest blow that ever struck humanity”

The British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith says that Hitler ‘consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of atheistic evolution’

The modern American author Henry Morris writes, ‘In the biological theory of Darwin, Hitler found his most powerful weapon against human values,’

I know many “Christians” who have been in the Church their entire lives but are Christian only in name, ie Nominal Christians.
God, wants us to come to Him willingly, it can’t be forced nor coerced. He didn't make robots the choice is ours, its called ‘Free will’.

Being a Deacon in a Christian church also does not make you a Christian. I have seen many Elders in churches that are not Christians, they have never personally asked Christ in, Jesus said ‘I stand and knock’ its up to you to let Him in. Good works won’t cut it, try as hard as you like.

Christ said that you must be both ‘born of water and the spirit to have eternal life’ That’s a flesh birth and a spiritual birth, we have no choice about our flesh birth, but we do have a choice to be born of the spirit. problem is its so easy that most people disregard it.

Hellothere; its a choice, dont be so hasty to make yours. "The surrest barier to all truth is the uninvestigated presumption you already have it" Edwin Spencer. Dont mean to offend here. presumption kills knowledge

Pericles; I thought my post was quite simple and quite clear. It may not have been what you were alluding to, sorry for that, i just stated that it is not possible to know what a persons real intentions are. Bringing in all your psycobabble wont help you get the point.

Mark was right. C.S. Lewis studied classical languages, philosophy and ancient history. Tolkien converted him to Christianity and they met for regular 'fantasy workshops'. Tolkien studied Classics, Old English, Germanic languages, Welsh and Finnish. Both were well versed in Germanic and Norse religious texts.

The lion is a symbol of Odin/Woden
Odin/Woden was sacrificed to save the world from its sins
The war of winter and summer are a central theme in pagan religion with Spring being the resurrection of life
The As in Aslan is Norse for 'High God'

Any christian who likes Narnia is a closet pagan but just doesn't know it.

Alan Grey says Jesus whips people in the temple, but most biblical scholars believe from the context the whip was used on the animals, not people.

The New Testament claims vengeance belongs to God and not to the individual. In Revelations, Jesus comes with a sword in the second coming but in the meantime pacificism is required.

(Revelations 13:10) "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Matthew 26:52) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Romans 12:14, 19-20 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. {19} Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. {20} Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink . .

The early martyrs of the Christian church died meekly, blessing their persecutors.

Ghandi reminds Mhoram of the true Christian message (even though he was Hindu) - he is more correct than he may imagine. Ghandi kept a picture of Jesus in his office and he modelled his practice of Satya Graha ('nonviolence' or 'passive resistance') on Christ.

Don't make assumptions about a person because they say they are or are not a Christian.

Mark, What are you on about?
If you continue to read your book of Revelations, you will find your 'Lamb' behaves like a 'Lion", so what point are you trying to make?
' And the Kings of the earth,and the great men,and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sittith on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?'
Rev 6 : 15-17

Remember that old saying : out of the mouth of babes. Quite a cluey 9 year old.

Numbat, have you actually done any studies in evolution? I have studied both science and theology and they are not mutually exclusive. Surely God would not create someone as ugly as me - I blame that on science. But the fact that it all had to start somewhere I give credit to something more than science.

As for the point about people subscribing to Christian religions not necessarily being Christians, I couldn't agree more. George Bush goes to Church every week and says he is doing God's work. I cannot think of anything further from the truth.

God bless,
Tubs

tubley: He has - me. numbat

Aziliz one sentence of qualification is all your post required. I can only go by what you write, and it was (without qualification) the sins of the Church taken out of context.

We fall too easily into taking the worst of something and presenting it as the whole.

We all lose when that happens.

Everyone has absorbed, everyone knows about the shadows of the Church it hasn’t hidden them, but publicly apologised. Do you find the priests of the high church of left wing academia doing anything similar? (They are usurpers and there is nothing worse than a usurper.)

What we haven’t absorbed is the good which is many orders of magnitude greater than the bad. (Read what a non-believer and professor of social sciences says about the Church.)

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=tqm4xd5mqkk5px43d968m19qmf4w3g5y

As an example of how unhelpful your post was let me ask you.
How many of us know the true story of the Crusades apart from the ideological histories produced within the last 30 years?

How many of us believe Cortez and the Conquistors were merely bloodthirsty gold hunters who wiped out a whole people? (There were only 500, the Aztecs were the Nazi’s of Sth America subjugated surrounding nations and used their citizens for human sacrifice) It was other Indians who defeated the Aztecs. The story is about the defeat of one Indian nation by others.

Who here really knows anything more of the Church except the Inquisition, Crusades and Galileo? An honest look at all of them paints a completely different picture than the one fed to us lately.

I can present a compelling case for atheism, I can paint Christianity as Satan’s Church. I can argue for this present brand of secularism til the cows come home. I held all three positions once. (if we were living

in the 15th century I would be criticising Church corruption)

The present corruption of history to serve ideological ends, a method freely admitted by these historians as valid, (Osama bin Laden in actually recruiting academics who preach this ideology)
http://jewishworldreview.com/0106/pipes2006_01_24.php3
must give way to history that serves the truth.

What is helpful? What does help Australia, what use should the truth be put to? An evident need. What is this?

The looming catastrophe facing western civilisation with its sub replacement fertility levels. We are breeding ourselves into extinction.

What will get ppl to have more babies? What will mobilise a whole civilisation? The true facts of the culture we inherit. Its beauty, its marvels, its grand achievements - all worthy of pride, all are worth preserving. The world has produced nothing that comes close. ( we learn from the best in other cultures also)

The systematic disparaging of the legitimacy of our institutions causes ppl to refuse to bring the next generation into our world. Why would we when our culture is so shameful?

We have to face our collective moral obesity as a people also – babies are seen as a burden not as a gift. As a cost to our ‘lifestyles’ rather than a joy.

Why is it that Christians and other groups who reject the prevailing ideology are having the most babies? (Will the meek will inherit the earth again like the monastic estates of the Middle Ages?)

No more taking the worst and presenting it as the whole. We can’t afford it anymore. We have to hurry. We may not make it.

(P.s. Himmler and the SS created their own Teutonic cult and Nazism itself was quasi religious. In this respect the Church was a rival whose days were numbered after a Nazi victory)

BD, I'm struggling to find where I mentioned "Why does God Allow" and followed with a list of tyrants. Help me out here please.

I personally consider the norms of the church more indicative than the extremes. I'd take the view that the Adolph Hitlers and Mother Teresa's of the world are very unusual people (in quite different ways), what is more telling for me is how the character of God looks when viewed in the lives of ordinary christains.
- Is wrongdoing within the christain church something which appears to be widespread or is it something remarkable for it's rarity?
- Are the christains I deal with in day to day life remarkable for the integrity of their lives or are they more likely to be the ones I most have to watch out for because they will put themselves first at the expense of others?
- Are the christains posting on OLO more tolerant and respectful of others than those with different belief structures?
- Why aren't most of christains on OLO excited about having the mission field come to their place - so much easier than keeping missionaries in the field oversea's in countries where converts can really suffer for changing faith?

Those kinds of questions are more telling for me than most of the stuff christains seem to want to talk about.

Have a great weekend all.
R0bert

edi - you didn't read the links I posted. Yes, people say Hitler was an atheist or a pagan or a Christian - so which one? If you had read the links I posted then you would know how I support what I say and never have used some of your quotes because they come from a disputed source as explained.

One of Hitler's heros was Charlemagne, a Frankish (Germanic) King who ruled over most of France, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, half of Italy and Germany, and parts of Austria and Spain. He was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800 AD. His job was to defend the faith and to convert by law, by persuasion and by the sword. The tradition of a group of Germanic Knights going on Crusade started here and was behind the crusades in the Middle East and against pagans and heretics throughout Europe. Hitler seethed against the communists precisely because they were atheists and was following a Christian tradition of persecution of minority religions. When he took over Austria he made sure the crown of Charlemagne was taken from Vienna to Nuremburg.

Martin - Himmler is a different case and I am not going to research that one - too much work. You want to for me :) Remember to double check the sources - too much nonsense out there.

edi - Dionysos, Woden and Tammuz do not postdate Christ. Earliest writings about Dionysos 1200 BC - Cretan Linear B and a major cult in Greece by 600 BC, Tammuz 2,400 BC - Sumerian Cuneiform - he is mentioned in the Bible Ezekiel 8:14 and Woden was worshipped where there was little writing prior to Christianity but artwork. You need to learn how to research. There is incorrect information out there - get original documentation where available. If not there are other methods like archaeology but don't quote hearsay and dubious sources. [quote]"The surrest barier to all truth is the uninvestigated presumption you already have it" Edwin Spencer. Dont mean to offend here. presumption kills knowledge [/quote] I agree.

Boaz_David - yes everyone needs to define what they mean by christianity and that was precisely the point of my post.

Martin - your links aren't well argued, there is an emotional bias that certain beliefs don't need explanation because they are self evident. The first one about capitalism and christianity answers in part the theories of Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel'. His theory is that technologically advanced societies had an advantage as they had access to the right climactic conditions, crops and animals. Diamond's book is well reasoned and interesting. From what Rodney Stark argues I doubt he read the book and only reacted to the title. For my answer about your second link I would say I am well aware of the pitfalls of reading poor sources, but Martin, in any argument you should look at all sides and origianl sources if you wish to come to a rational conclusion - and yes even if there has been violence. That doesn't mean I condone the violence done by opponents of the West - but I am aware of the violence the west has done in the Middle East over time and I don't condone that either.

Yes Pope John Paul II apoligised for the Roman Catholic Church's past violence towards others and it's repression of minorities and Cardinal Edward Cassidy particularly apologised for the persecution of the Jews and the Roma (Gypsies) 12th March,2000 - and that was a good thing. But an understanding of why the previous history of 1600 years of persecution by Christians towards minorities occurred is needed - not to single out Christianity but rather as a tendency of humanity. If the Pope is apologising, Bush, Howard and Blair are not nor their Muslim counterparts. They all think they are being guided by God.

I disagree that you cannot know what happened in the past. Most of History has an overwhelming amount of documentation available that was not 'created' in the last 30 years if you are only willing to open your eyes and read the first hand accounts from both sides.

Aziliz.

Well done on the info.

The biggest struggle i have is people infering that just simply because someone calls themselves a Christian, they are.

There is a traditional ellement, particularly within Catholosism that says if you are born a Catholic you are a Catholic (Christian). I was born Roman Catholic, but there is no way that i believed in Jesus Christ, i was certainly not a Christian and particularly not 'born again'and nor did i ever go to Chrurch.

At twenty nine years of age, after quite a personnal struggle trying to reconcile what i see all around me with the what many percieve to be Chance, I came to faith.

Dont mean to blab here, What i am trying to say is that if the persons behavior does not reflect the change that is meant to have occurred within (the birth of the spirit) only one of two things can be concluded.
1) He/She has not grown as a Christian and is therefore no different than what is seen in this world. or
2) IS NO CHRISTIAN.

As i mentioned to Pericles above, you can tell by the fruit displayed by the individual.
The fruit displayed by Hitler was directly in line with the biblical veiw of Satan rather than God.

One of my last posts speaks to this trend of growing secularism that rips at the Church from inside out.
But more importantly goes directly against the entire concept of the faith these people claim to profess.

I guess the most difficult aspect of history is the fact that, we were not there, therefore just as in the legal system, we need to discern this or that beyond resonable doubt.
There are more than enough websites and documents out there, i have found, that can give you so much information from numerous different angles regardles what you beleive.

I guess that is why we need to also trust the instinct or the heart. If the answers give you no lasting peace, chances are its the wrong answer.
I'm relating more to ourselves personally here not history.
Cheers.

Robert: Extremes aren't isolated incidents that float on their own little islands - they are the tip of a very great mountain. Hitler had a huge amount of support from Christians within Germany and from axis countries. He had the support of 1600 years of Roman Catholic tradition.

Currently today this 'christian' attitude is sneaking back into politics with the Bush administration - not to say that they are going as far as the 'final solution' but torture, incarceration without charges, and invasion and occupation based on patent lies is a big step backwards in human rights. It is happening right now.

The theories of Eugenics/Race purification were most developed in America. The Nazis had a mutual relationship with them: http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/naziconnection.html I put this in to show that the climate that created the holocaust had worldwide elements and not just German.

"- Is wrongdoing within the christain church something which appears to be widespread or is it something remarkable for it's rarity?" I would say that it was widespread for 1600 years but that it has improved - there still are abuses.

"- Are the christians I deal with in day to day life remarkable for the integrity of their lives or are they more likely to be the ones I most have to watch out for because they will put themselves first at the expense of others?" The christians I have mixed with over the years do fall primarily into the second category definitely. I could give you a list of their abusive behaviour but it would be so much more than 250 words. On the positive side - I have always hoped that decent ones are out there somewhere - but I rarely meet them.

"- Are the christains posting on OLO more tolerant and respectful of others than those with different belief structures?" Nope

Edi & Rob - you know I really hoped that someone would comment on Ghandi. Everyone is quick to discount Hitler as not being a christian or not being a true christian but noone comments on Ghandi and his christian beliefs and practices. Is it christian bigotry that stops any of you from making a comment on my post mentioning that Ghandi modelled his practice of Satya Graha (non-violent resistanced) on Christ? Can't a Hindu have christian values and have done some good with it? But Ghandi was the tip of the mountain too, Ghandi had millions of Hindus and yes moslems behind him.

Robert and Edi All my posts started because I wanted to question the posts that were so sure how much better Christians are than other people. Even Roberts post says christians are remarkable for the integrity of their lives. Remarkable compared to whom? And you think that is you being tolerant and respectful? I have only ever found individual people who are remarkable for the integrity of their lives - and I have found them in every religion and non religion.

Some of the christian posts say or intimate christians are good and better than others and I say not really - look what christians have done and see other people who are not christians can do good things too. And the answer I get from christians is that I am mean for saying what actually happened and that christians that do bad things aren't true christians and that christians are better than other people. So we are back to the beginning and I have achieved nothing. And so i give up.

I don't usually bother viewing the forums on this site (usually don't have time), but I have found this whole discussion fascinating. Thank you guys for all participating in the debate.

I agree wholeheartedly that Christians are not necessarily 'better' people than anyone else. We should be/could be but we're not. Unfortunately, as humans, we make exactly the same mistakes as anyone else. As Christians, however, God gives us the strength and the power and the will to do better. Unfortunately, again, many choose not to use this. Whether these 'Christians' are true Christians, only God knows. As was mentioned previously, Christians show by their 'fruit' their true colours.

Jesus tells us "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord... Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:21-23).

So guys, when you suggest that 'Christians' fall short of your expectations, remember that God weeps as well.

You are right when suggesting we are too intolerant. However, our Bible is what we know to be the Word of God. And within this book Jesus tells us that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". (John 14:6). So forgive us when we seem rather pig-headed about it, but we truly can't believe any differently if we are to believe the words of Christ.

Thank you again for a truly insightful forum. This has reminded me of what a bad job we are doing in trying to spread the Word of Christ. We ARE no better than anyone else. But some of us are aiming to please the heart of God. There are many non-Christians out there who do put us to shame. Maybe this forum will incite a few of us to show a bit more love...

:-)

Axiliz, I think that you have misunderstood me fairly dramatically (or I have done some very poor phrasing).

My point is that if the christain gospel is true and christains are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of the Living God as most will claim and if their God is doing a transforming work in their lives they should be remarkable people (not for the reasons Hitler was remarkable).

That is not what I observed in my years as a christian or since. My views are pretty much identical to what you state when you say "I have only ever found individual people who are remarkable for the integrity of their lives - and I have found them in every religion and non religion." That single statement if true negates the entire message of a christain God who works in the lives of his people.

Parts of the christain church spend a lot of time telling themselves and others how much happier and joyful they are than non christains, they talk about the transforming power of God but that's not really the way it is. Its propaganda to keep christains going and to try and entice people into christainity who might be feeling dissatisfied with life. See coach's original post for an example - I suspect that he almost believes it himself. It is hard for christains to see outside the box, the message is continually being reinforced and expression or consideration of doubts is not welcome.

Have a look at the responses to the points I have raised, there have been a number of attempts to portray me as having major issues rather than deal with the possibility that they might be legitimate observations or conclusions. Any doubts about God are treated as a problem with the person expressing the doubts (who really has no right to question God etc). It can take a lot to break out of that stuff.

Cheers
R0bert

P.S.

I loved the Narnia film. I thought it stayed true to the book, as much as possible. I read the books as an adult and loved them.

And contrary to the opinions of others, I believe that the people trying to 'push' films like Narnia, the Jesus Film and The Passion are doing so with a heart for trying to teach the world about Christ. What they accomplish with this, we may never know. But praise God that someone is out there trying.

Yes, the marketing and materialism that go hand-in-hand with these films tends to cheapen the message. But that doesn't mean the message in them can't be used for good. So what if someone's making money out of it? There are many secular movies that can provide good messages as well...

So to other Christians out there - Don't criticise someone else's ministry, just because it's not the way you would do it. Instead praise God that they are spreading Christ's message. Remember, even Paul was criticised...

:-)

Aziliz,
Christians who are born again, at the very least have a set of moral guidlines that they believe are directly from God, ie the 10 comandments, and are not relative to cultural influences which is so pervasive in todays religion of secular humanism that trys to determine moral values based on what the majority feels is acceptalble, so in that regard at least they start off in the right direction. do they allways follow it? no! Do secular humanists follow their ever shifting values? no!

What can be detemined is that with the shift in cultural influences over the last 10 to 30 years, and you only need to switch on the T.V. (Time Vaporiser) to see that, the banning of the bible in schools, banning of prayer, the teaching of a life which has ultimately no value other than that which benefits a degraded society. its not hard to see the direction we are headed morally with our shifting values.

With respect to a man such as Gandi, i could only hope that my children would have the moral Character he displayed, and there are many many individuals who display that character which are not heard of on the popular media.

However the BIG question is ultimately about you and me! what are we doing to rid the evil in our own lives, Gandi is dead and so are most of his original followers, the factions are still there and peace is still evasive. But what can we do to be better people, we can point to as many others as we like, but what are we doing to protect our children from this perverse culture.

The daughter of a freind of mine had just started high school and she was confronted by girls her own age talking about oral sex with boys, this kid has just finished primary school for goodness sake.

If you dont at the least have a standard to live by that is absolute, you will set your own. Is todays society doing better or worse?
but wait there's more...an attempt to answer Robert

Cont

Rob
Please read this without the contempt you seem to have for Christianity. I don’t mean to offend but please be open to this post.

I don't believe you were ever a Christian, you were a religious church goer like probably 80% of the traditional attendees and you were rightfully discouraged by their behavior and hypocrisy, but I don’t think a Christian in a spirit filled sense.

1) You place a considerable amount of responsibility on Gods transformation of the ‘indwelt’ believer,
yet He can only work His will when the believer allows it.

As at the beginning, we still have a ‘free will’ , and just as our coming to faith was a choice, so is allowing Him to work in us.

Its about trusting God enough with continued steps of faith, to make the changes in our lives and to direct us where He needs us to go.
If we’re created for a purpose, it only stands to reason that we need to discern that purpose from the Creator Himself. But, ‘its up to us’, again, our choice.

Just as God will not force anyone to believe He exists, nor will He force His will on anyone even after they come to faith. I discovered this five years after I came to faith.

Sorry I know I’m preaching forgive me, I’m just hoping to bring some form of an answer to you.

2) Jesus Christ is called The Savior, important to realize this was His first objective.
Reconciling a fallen humanity with its Creator. A corrupt creation cannot relate to a perfect creator.

Regardless how good a person thinks they are, they can never be good enough.

Christ did not come to make bad men good, BUT to give dead men life.

The Ten Commandments came for man to experience the futility of attempting to keep them, and therefore realise his need of a savior.

So opposite to how we think.

Yet he has made a provision for us, and it’s the rejection of this provision that will ultimately condemn us.

edi, so far you have not given me any reason for contempt of your posts, I disagree with much of your content but that is a different issue. I try and read each post and give it fair consideration except where people are clearly playing standard cop outs. The assumption that I was never a christian comes close but I think you mean it in good faith so I will try and answer.

I think this will be the last time I'll bother answering the suggestion that I was not a christian. I'll never prove it to those who can't except it and I really don't want to keep on that topic, I've tried to move on from it.

If I was not a christain then
- No evangelical can be confident they are. I did the asking, repentance, submission etc. Not perfect but no shortcuts either. Over 20 years of active and serious involvement in evangelical christianity. It's probably safer for you guys to believe that I was a christain and that it is possible to turn away otherwise any confidence in you might have in your own salvation is null and void.
- Being a christain requires more than what is preached by pretty much the entire evangelical christain church. Back in the late 70's early 80's there were some people preaching that you were not saved without the evidence of speaking in tongues, that is about the only extra step I have heard put forward in Australian christainity. I'm guessing that none of you require handling of poisonous snakes during worship.
- Christains are an even smaller minority than you guys want it to be. I assume that the large percentage from census surveys quoted by some on this site to justify trying to enforce christain values onto the rest of us bears no relation to the actual number of christains but that the number of actual christains bears some relation to the number who take the christain faith seriously. I'm happy to concede that there are lots less if you really want me to.

R0bert

You bunch of <insert profanity> was waannkers ... (actually wasn't as bad as you think... Jesus used worse...)

I was just seaching on google for the 12 ancient greek gods for a Uni assignment and your thread came up...

1. There is no god... stop wasting your <insert profanity here> time.

2. Anyone remotely invloved in religion is either

a> an abused recoverer...

or

b> someone wishing to abuse/ control the feeble minded person for position... profit or... power.

I am not saved / born again / forgiven / chosen...

Just responsible... FOR MY OWN ACTIONS....

Just wasting everybodies time...

get laid, have a smoke and ENJOY LIFE....

Cheers

Johcol

PS I have tried to remove the profanity... jesus... wow that got thru

Sorry Robert. I only read your one post and I misunderstood :)

Edi - Brought up a christian I felt very passionate about it. I wanted to be a missionary. I didn't just turn up at church and go through the motions. In my early teens I asked for a bible. I was shaking with reverence when I began to read it. The Word of God! After 800 pages of blood guts and gore where "good" guys seemed pretty "bad" I threw up. I couldn't stand it any more so I skipped to the New Testament. It was a real relief in comparison but the Revelations produced a lot of anxiety. Now I suffered anxiety.

When I was 16 I mixed with a group of Thais who were predominantly Buddhists. I was attracted to them because they were so polite, kind and caring. I wanted to convert the Buddhists to save them but I was forced to confront that these were good people with spiritual feelings despite not being Christians. It was then I realised how deeply Christianity made me believe other religions are evil, that anyone who was not christian would wind up in hell, the pit, the place of grinding and gnashing of teeth, cast out from the sight of god for all eternity. I would never had to truly confront this if I did not have these people among my dearest and closest friends.

It still took me five years to get over the incredible fear that the Bible instilled in me. The Bible is full of threats and fear mongering about being eternally punished. I had to acknowledge how fearful it made me. I stopped believing.

I felt so free! Allelulia! I am a born again non-christian! Such a weight lifted off my shoulders. No longer did I have to worry about my kind friends rotting in hell. No more having to disrespect all my friends and a large portion of the world's beliefs. I felt safe to be curious, inquisitive and interested in things, I could question things and listen, and read and pay attention.

I could respect Jesus without swallowing the fish whole. I could say - I don't like that bit!

I read the bible again with my new freedom and saw that the Gospels were approx 25% threats and exhortations to have a mindless, unquestioning 'faith'.

The New testament is the source of the 'divine right of Kings' (dictators) to rule 1 Pet. 2:13,14 Rom.13:1-2 Luke 19:12-27

Christianity approves of slavery and says that slaves must do the bidding of their master even if he is cruel and beats them. 1Pet. 2:18-29 Ephesians 6:5-6 1 Timothy 6:1-2 Matt. 10:24 Matt. 24:45-46 1Tim. 6:1-5 Titus 2:9-10.

Christians shouldn't mix with unbelievers 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

Paul lays a curse on someone Timothy: 1:19-20

That jews will be cast into hell Matt: 8:11-12

That you must pay all taxes Luke 20:21-26

'Top Five signs you are a Fundamentalist Christian' (copy)

1 You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

2 You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving.

3 You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

4 Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees etc, etc.

5 You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

Aziliz, thanks. Great posts. You've expressed the freedom that comes from getting out from under that particular yoke very well. Still I've no particular interest in insisting others get free of it, their life, their choice as long as they don't try and force it on me or expect me to live by their rules.

Some of the fundies do know the bible fairly well, they just have their tools for ignoring the bits they are uncomfortable with - OT fullfilled in the new or culturalising bits that are not phrased that way. Others don't appear to know it at all well. I guess most of us do that with aspects of our lives.

Anyway thanks for the thoughtful posts you have brought to this thread. We have drifted somewhat from the original article but that is not particularly uncommon and has possibly been worthwhile, it is a shame that some of the christain posters have not put a bit more effort into responding to the points we have made rather than looking for cop outs and the like but I guess that was to be expected. At least edi has played fairly straight.

R0ber

The New testament is the source of the 'divine right of Kings' (dictators) to rule 1 Pet. 2:13,14 Rom.13:1-2 Luke 19:12-27

Christianity approves of slavery and says that slaves must do the bidding of their master even if he is cruel and beats them. 1Pet. 2:18-29 Ephesians 6:5-6 1 Timothy 6:1-2 Matt. 10:24 Matt. 24:45-46 1Tim. 6:1-5 Titus 2:9-10.

Jesus became a SLAVE to free SLAVES - and if anyone is in SLAVERY, he/she can look to JESUS as a ROLE MODEL.

Christians shouldn't mix with unbelievers 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

Jesus is a Friend of SINNERS, yet he didn't get SIN through them.

Paul lays a curse on someone Timothy: 1:19-20

Well, Jesus says :BLESS THOSE WHO CURSE YOU.

That jews will be cast into hell Matt: 8:11-12

JESUS SAID : " If anyone believes in ME, he/she has ETERNAL LIFE (HEAVEN)

That you must pay all taxes Luke 20:21-26

JESUS PAID TO THE ROMANS - GIVE UNTO GOD WHAT IS GOD's, GIVE UNTO CEASAR WHAT IS CEASAR's..

The New testament is the source of the 'divine right of Kings' (dictators) to rule 1 Pet. 2:13,14 Rom.13:1-2 Luke 19:12-27

Kings & Priests in the Kingdom of LOVE, - what a privilege!

no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

Yes, It is Joy to believe in the TRUTH.

when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees etc, etc.

JESUS says TO LOVE ENEMIES; HE hasn't killed anyone - HE did GOOD THINGS - for which HE was KILLED. and I follow JESUS.

deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

There are many "gods" and "goddesses" but they haven't done anything for me. I believe in JESUS who DIED for ME

Aziliz

You certainly have the intellect yet your logic is far from logical.
Do you really believe that you can make a smorgasboard of gods and just pick what you like and discard what you dont.
If there is indeed a God (and you know my veiw) what on earth makes you think he/she/it will make itself up under the flawed logic of man? dont you think thats even just a little naive not to mention vain.

The difficulties you see in the bible get quite clear when you have the tenacity to learn what it is you are reading in the context of the book.

Theres a saying 'A text without a context becomes a proof text for a pretext'
in other words, to use a computer analogy, if you torture the data enough it will confess to anything.

You need to take into account " the entire council of God " and to do that you need to be led by the spirit.

But that to you is just Christianese babble, and gives you more empty arguments to throw around.

Christ said " if i tell you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if i tell you heavenly things." John 3: 12

The biggest problem with Christianity is that it is so simple its so difficult.
"a Stumbling block to many" "wisdom of God is foolishness to man" " Professing to be wise they became fools" you need to read Romans 1.

I am finding this forum incredibly enlightning, everything i read here confirms biblical prediction about the state of man.

I'm sorry mate i guess i'm just as frustrrated with this topic as you are.

In the end we are either correct or incorrect. if we are incorrect we have wasted our lives following this path, and our eternity will be either non existant or with everyone else.
If correct however the implication is eternal, sorry i'm truly not that big a gambler.

You really want to make sure you know what you know. we aint betting with matches here.

Aziliz, with me it was

Christianity is all just love, mercy and forgiveness. Jesus loved everyone forgave even his executioners, healed and generally was this great guy - so what!

Thought the God thing was a fairytale. Until life forced me to ask the question seriously 'who is Jesus' . I said to God ok I need you now and the help came the next day. I asked from my heart and there it was, and Our Lord hasn't left since, I know him better each day.

As for other religions Aziliz what about St Matthew's Gospel the sheep and the goats? What about the Good Samaratan (the Samaratans were fierce enemies of the Jews).

If you emphasise hell and judgment you have to emphasise the love and forgiveness too!

Anyway don't you want justice. If a Nazi tortured and murdered your entire family right now wouldn't a good God demand justice?

If God is real his justice must be real too. If he's made his choice to reject God despite knowing enough of the good, how can God give him what he does not want?

The gates of Hell are locked from the inside Aziliz. Look at the demons in the bible, they know God exists but choose themselves and hell rather than love and other people.

an example is Johcol a few posts ago.

Given the millions of needs in our families, communities etc our time could be spent using our gifts for the benefit of others. Its this that brings true joy and happiness.

If johcol persists in his self centredness for long enough eventually he'll be lost and wont be able to find his way back. He could be making his parents proud, he could be bringing his friends along in his achievements. Instead of risking an abortion his sanctity could reveal things that would otherwise remain hidden. That thing he identifies as himself is nothing more than an ego protected by illusions. His real self can only be given by God and only in the way Jesus showed.

And who can say how many steps it takes away from the true path before return is impossible, ie how long a person persists in sin before they become deaf to God's voice permanently. Sin also insults the majesty of God. Satan squirms will delight when humans do the wrong thing.

Jesus chose to be a human from the beginning and all humans are modelled on him. Given that he is God too, all we have to do (as humans as well) to gain this zoe life this divine life is to accept Jesus. Its a free gift. Or we settle down into a sub humanity and mere bios life. Accepting the gift we become who we are supposed to be - like God in Heaven in eternity with Him. Or the other place if we don't like that flavour. But we have to reckon with lies along the way.

Satan is trying to get Johcol lost and confused (and is clearly doing a good job), and God (who brought him to this forum) is trying to win his beloved child back.

R0bert,

I watched from a distance your heartfelt debate. Most was being said without my input.

Let’s sum up.

1. You chose not to believe anymore in God and his paraphernalia by exercising your right of freedom of choice
2. You based your decision on what you have observed of the church and your perception of God’s inability to manage his “affairs” on earth.
3. You claim that Christians don’t identify with the possibility to change ones mind after being ‘born again’
4. You question (our) ability to think outside God’s box and evaluate other options out there
5. The sum total of your Christian experience have left you at best wanting and unsatisfied; you even wondered if there was more that was needed (tongues, signs,…)
6. You fail to differentiate between the visible manifestation of God’s church and God himself (as we discussed) therefore you rejected both
7. You believe that Christians are narrow minded and/or brainwashed and therefore any other views are shunted aside and cannot possibly be entertained
8. You take much relief and comfort in your decision ‘not to believe’ by convincing yourself (and others) that it was the right decision
9. Now looking from the outside in, you can even substantiate your convictions
10. You distrust other opinions as biased and shallow

I don’t buy into that. I think (gut feel) that you are seeking validation by exposing your puzzling unspiritual realm on this forum.

The only plausible explanation to me (still is) that you have never been “born again” (die to self and rise with Christ as a new creation). It does happen. Many go through the motions but never have a true longterm hand in hand relationship with Him.

The facts of the reality and existence of God are there; and not like you say a fairy tale. But it is up to you and your strength of character to face up to it instead of taking the cowardly and easy way out.

Sorry but that is how it looks to me even if you don’t agree.

Coach

Of the many posters to this website, R0bert is one of the most thoughful. He clearly gives full consideration to both sides of an argument before posting - suggest you reread his posts. I do not always agree with him, however he is always consistent in his beliefs and tries hard to see other's POV's.

Therefore, to state: "But it is up to you and your strength of character to face up to it instead of taking the cowardly and easy way out."

This is, yet again, a cheap shot and use of emotional blackmail on a poster.

If there is a God, then it is people like R0bert who will find him/her/it for he is not afraid to question, not afraid to reconsider his views and he doesn't take cheap shots at other posters. Not the cowardly and easy way out at all.

What is cowardly and easy is to claim to all who do not hold to your particular brand of religion that they (we) are somehow lacking in character, or risking an eternity in hell.

If there is a hell, I have no doubt it will be crowded with the self righteous, intolerant and dogmatic. Those who choose to live peaceful and helpful lives have nothing to fear regardless of whether they are religious or not.

Martin,

Well done on your post, most non believers tend to think, as i did, that Christians are just fundamentalists without brains trying to convert people for there own agenda, or for money ra ra ra.

I remember simply hearing the name of "Jesus" would make me feel sick, Why? That never happend when i heard the names of any other religious leader, why this one?

The concept of God never left me, i had to take a step of faith, this isn't unusual in the business world, all the motivational books tell you that you need to 'believe it before you see it' so I took the step.
I had to accept Him into my life, God-not Jesus, until He made me aware that He and Jesus Christ were one in the same.

Tough call, but i was definately blind before that, the problem with blindness is...you cant see!

But you see even us writing in this way has people like R0bert thinking, 'there they go again theyre just trying to push theyre religion onto me', cant blame them, i used to think the same way, allways waiting for the catch.

The truth is, i dont know any of the people on this post, cant get in touch with them, would never benefit from theyre conversion, yet, how could i NOT share something that has changed my life so overwhelmingly, how could i not defend what i know to be true (sorry all you reletivists) How can i not tell anyone how good this new found freedom is. How do you explain to someone about freedom when they have never experienced it in thier lives.

You cant tell someone what it's like to have kids until they have them, you cant tell someone what the water feels like until they jump in.

And my heart goes out to people like R0bert and Aziliz who have had an experience of pseudo Christianity or have struggled with different "christian people".

But the reality of The Christ remains, the transformed lives remain and the evidence of a fallen world remain.

coach, pretending to "sum up" by paraphrasing someone else's words is an old, tired and extremely discredited orators trick. It is a dubious practice that speaks of someone who has little faith in their own arguments.

You compound this by using your highly-convenient summary as a lead-in to your own views... "I don’t buy into that... the only plausible explanation to me (still is) that ..."

Straw man. Set up an idea of your own invention, knock it down.

If this were a football game, the ref's whistle would be working overtime and both linesmen would be flagging their hearts out.

And to cap it all, you have the audacity to state "The facts of the reality and existence of God are there"

There, in a nutshell, is the source of your miscommunication. You may have a belief in your head and in your heart that "facts" are available, but it simply isn't true. It is just a belief.

No-one is bagging you for having these beliefs, only for letting them come between you and the observable realities of our lives.

I happen to believe that there are many questions to which we don't know the answers. Your position is that they have all been taken care of by your belief in God, so you don't feel the need to examine the questions any longer.

That's fine, except you can't stop yourself from one final insult.

"But it is up to you and your strength of character to face up to it instead of taking the cowardly and easy way out."

If some of us believe that the questions haven't been adequately answered, is it more or less cowardly to give up asking them? Your choice of insult could, if R0bert were so inclined, be turned against you, as one who has opted not to face up to the questions, but instead has taken the easy way out by adopting a particular belief system.

Someone referred to belief in God because of a FEAR of dying. I dont have a FEAR of dying. If Im wrong in my beliefs as a Christian (which I dont think I am), I will die and enter eternal blackness, having lived a wonderful peace filled life in knowing a God who doesnt exist, but if Im right, I will enter paradise.
Those who refuse to beleive/acknowledge God, they too enter eternal blackness when they die. No big deal. But if theyre wrong, and God does exist, and theyve lived their life rejecting Him, they will die and enter eternal hell. Who has the consequences in this scenario?

It really doesnt matter what you beleive to be truth. Truth is truth, and our opinions dont matter in the slightest when it comes time for our lives to be over. Somthing we can all count on! We can all argue and bicker about the truth, beliefs, religion, God etc etc. There is only one truth.
God has given us all a warning. In the bible. Not a warning to put FEAR into us, but because He loves us and wants none to perish.

"Hitler was a devout christian cos he quoted scripture all the time"? SATAN quoted scripture quite often. Was he a devout christian?

I loved "narnia" by the way. As a good film, not because of any christian themes. I felt moved when aslan went to his death for someone else, cos it reminded me of my position with christ. Other than that. A good movie!

Genesis

First you claim:'theyve lived their life rejecting Him, they will die and enter eternal hell'

Then you claim: 'Truth is truth, and our opinions dont matter in the slightest when it comes time for our lives to be over'

I don't know if there is a god. Nor do I live in fear. I do try to live honestly, because that's the kind of person I am.

So that when I see hypocrisy or even contradictory statements such as yours I am compelled to not only point them out but to use them to explain why (to a non-believer) they are insulting to people who no doubt lead exemplary lives but hold different beliefs.

If your god is so petty as to condemn good decent people purely on the basis of belief, then I want nothing to do with such an immature, childish deity.

If your god welcomes all who have tried the best they can to be the best they are then I return that welcome.

I know I have probably just given the devoutly dogmatic further fuel to denigrate myself and others, however, I am just as valid, just as vital as any christian.

".......Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labours & aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery & broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy. "

The words of the Desiderata are as true for me now as they were when I first read them 35 years ago.

For the complete Desiderata please access

http://www.mountainman.com.au/desidera.html

So GENESIS, you thought you'd have a "bob each way" did you?
What incredible arrogance you religious people display. Only you know the truth.
At least I, as a non-religious person, have the humility to say "I don't know", and I also have the courage not to be brow beaten into saying that I believe in God just to escape some eternal damnation which YOU say would be my fate.
I'm NOT saying that GOD doesn't exist. He may well exist, it's an easy answer as to why the universe exists. Or he may not, and the universe is just some amazing accident. No-one really knows, especially not those who self-righteously claim that they do.
It is very difficult to explain the existence of the universe and it would be great to have this "personal experience" and "conversations" with God, as you people claim to.
Unfortunately, God has never spoken to me.
I'd really like to know just how this "speaking with God" manifests itself. Is it a sound in your ear? Is it just a thought transfer? What?
I'll bet there are a lot of people who will end up in heaven, if it exists, who have had nothing at all to do with any "religion" (of whatever variety) which has been the cause of so much evil in the world. Even the fact that there are many different religions, and sects within those religions, which are so divisive, should tell you something. All these different religions and sects think they are the only ones that "know" the truth- well they can't ALL be right, can they?
There I am getting drawn into a religious conversation, when I know it is utterly useless to discuss it with people such as yourself. It is only your incredible arrogance that moves me to respond.

Scout
Read my post again. I said that our opinions dont matter. What you believe, or what I beleive. Whether the truth is my beleif, or the truth is your belief. In the end, if Im wrong, no consequences, if your wrong, huge consequences. neither hypocrisy nor contradiction in that statement. You beleive you just need to "be a good person", I beleive in what the bible teaches. What does it matter in the end. It matters what God, if there is a god, says. where do you get your "standards" of good from? By our standards, we're good people cos we do good to others, and love others (except those who hurt us of course). Cos we're comparing ourselves with those murderers and child molesters. Of course we're good. Gods standards are wayyyy higher.
A little analogy. little girl riding past a field of sheep, and thinks 'wow, how white the sheep are, and then it suddenly starts to snow, and against the lovely fresh white snow, the sheep dont look so white anymore. We see ourselves as white and pure, but against gods standards, we're filthy.
And yes, scout, you are just as vital and valid as any christian. Christians are not better people, just forgiven, because we've asked for that forgiveness.

Pericles, Scout, nice posts.

coach, still thinking about the value and content of any response to your post. Perciles made some of the points well. Courage is so often a matter of perspective. Personally I found the journey I am on tough to start out on.

edi and Genesis, both of you seem to suggest that there are only two possible options for an "after-life", the christain heaven or nothing. Whilst I personally think that the odds are heavily in favour of the "nothing" option I can't see any reason to exclude the possibility that any one of a myriad of other possibilties are just as worthy of consideration as the christain heaven.

The gamble is not so different for any of us, for those like Genesis who are convinced life is a christain is all that it can be regardless of the truth or otherwise of your faith then nothing lost. For me that option was loss. So from my perspective I've kept as much of a certainty as exists in this world (my life) and face similar odds to you in the afterlife stakes.

If there is an after-life it could be that for some of the possibilities of what it is your choice to follow the concept of God you have chosen rather than live your own lives will count against you. A version of reincarnation which allows us to progress more as we put away childish things like a "father God" for example.

Given that most of humanity has not believed in your particular version of an afterlife it is something worth serious consideration.

Cheers
R0bert

RObert: You do not know what you are talking about - ETERNITY IS A BLOODY LONG WHILE! numbat

I'm a newcomer to this forum, but one post interested me - "What do "jesus" Aslan, the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, Daffy Duck and the Rugrats all have in common?

"They are all essentially cartoon characters used to entertain and perhaps "educate" young children. They all belong to to the comic book and cartoon channels on TV."

If the writer checked into history, they would discover that Jesus really lived and is written about by other people separate and apart from the Bible. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about him around 100 AD (forgive me, I'm not much good at dates) Pliny the Elder also wrote about him and then there are the Church fathers who wrote about him, all within 100 years or so of his life. We're therefore left with three alternatives for Jesus. Either he was a lunatic, a liar or Lord. Usually, an open-minded, unbiased reading of the 4 gospels will reveal that he could not have been lunatic or a liar. If we still can't accept him as Lord, then perhaps that will come once the lunatic and the liar have been dealt out of the equasion.

I know one thing - the life without Christ in which I once lived has no comparison to the life he has given me now!

Val, with the greatest respect, your "three alternatives" are a product of evangelical brainwashing, and are not in the slightest degree logical.

(By the way, you are only allowed two 'alternatives'; any more than two become choices, or possibilities)

For a start, the "facts" on which you base your argument are themselves suspect.

The texts attributed to Josephus - who was not a first-hand source, since he wasn't born until 37AD - have been disputed by scholars since the seventeenth century. Relying upon two brief sentences to "prove" anything historical is anyhow risky.

Pliny the Elder did not write anything about Jesus. At all. Check it out.

You will also find, if you look very carefully, that there is absolutely no contemporary account of Jesus' life, only retrospectives written by interested parties. Surely - surely - if someone went around today healing the sick, raising the dead and turning water into wine, we could expect a word or two to leak out into the press?

So your conclusion "Either he was a lunatic, a liar or Lord. Usually, an open-minded, unbiased reading of the 4 gospels will reveal that he could not have been lunatic or a liar" cannot possibly be justified.

Val, before you jump in with disingenuous commentary on someone else's observations, make sure that you do some thinking for yourself. I'm sure your pastor at Hillsong approves of what you are doing, but be aware you are using their thoughts, not your own.

Hi Val
A few corrections to your post.
Pliny [writing in 112 CE] merely mentioned that he wrote for advice on how to handle troublesome christians in his area. There is NO mention of Christ in any of his works.
The Roman historian Suetonius mentions trouble being caused by "Chrestus" while he [chrestus] was in Rome. No record of Jesus ever having been in Rome therefore it is unlikely to have been him.
Tacitus mentions the apostles following Christ. But there is a problem here. He seems to have got his information straight from the christians themselves, not from independent evidence. How do we know? Because he writes that Jesus lived while Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea. Pilate was NEVER procurator he was the prefect. A stela has been found with the inscription "Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judaea". So Tacitus is ruled out as an independent witness.
How about Josephus you ask? He mentions Jesus twice! The only trouble is the first mention [in "Antiquities of the Jews"] of Jesus seems to be an insertion by christians themselves done centuries after Josephus' death - most probably by Eusebius. How can I say that? For two reasons.
1) There is no mention of this passage in any christian defence of the faith before Eusebius - and some of them knew Josephus very well.
2) Most importantly in the Antiquities Josephus is arguing that the prophets have been misinterpreted. That the messiah would come from Israel but not from the Jews because the messiah was the conquerer of Israel Vespasian. Right in the middle of this Josephus seems to break off, talk about Jesus as the Messiah, then go back to arguing how Vespasian was the true messiah. What does that sound like to you?
The last place where Josephus seems to mention Jesus is in the Jewish Wars. To Quote the historians Freke & Gandy "These spurious passages are confined to an appendix known as the "Slavonic Additions".
To be continued.

continued from previous post...
There is one last source that mentions Jesus. It mentions "Yeshua the Nazarene" & claims that he "practiced sorcery and enticed Israel astray" The source is the Talmud.
There are two problems however.
1) The Talmud wasn't written down until the 2nd Century CE and we don't know if these are earlier passages. There is no way to be sure.
2) In one passage Yeshua is mentioned as having five followers "Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni and Todah" NONE of these names are found in the New Testament.

Having said all that I hold that Jesus WAS a historical figure & here are the reasons why.

1) History was, until recently written about the rich and famous for the rich and famous. What was Jesus? To the roman's he was nothing but a foreign peasant from a fea-speck corner of their empire. That being so it's hardly surprising that no Roman historian writes about him.
It should be noted that Roman historians never even mentioned their own peasants yet we believe they exist...unless the nobility did all the hard work. :D

2) While it is true that the jews tended to be more interested in Religious figures than the Romans they were also obsessed with figures that opposed the hated Romans. Remember to the orthodox Jews Jesus was just a trouble-making upstart. So why should Jewish writers mention him?

3) We do have a number of locations of where followers of Jesus gathered to pray. The earliest is dated from the late 1st century CE. How do we know that christians gathered to pray there? Because the Chi Rho symbol [alpha & Omega to you non-latin speakers] is scrawled on the walls. As far as we know this is not associated with any other religion except christianity.

So there is SOME evidence that Jesus existed [or was believed to have existed] from the same era. Now does this PROVE that Jesus is God? No! But if we could supply proof then faith wouldn't be needed...would it?

Wellll well.. "my turn" :) Professor Pericles.. you and associate professor Bosk need to be taken aside in the kindest way:)

Firstly Josephus.. also mentions "James, Brother of Jesus, called Christ" and to my knowledge this has not been challenged. The other reference claimed by Bosk to be 'a Eusebian Christian insertion' is an argument from silence. When things are mentioned cannot be taken to be an indication of their falsehood, though I agree the argument carries a tiny amount of weight.

There is also the matter of the Arab version of Josephus, which tends to dilute the 'Christian-ness' of the passage, but clearly believes it to actually 'be genuine'

Then there is the disputed "James Ossuary" and some careful digging into 'who' disputes the "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" inscription, reveals some scholarly bias of the grandest proportion.
Those disputing the "Brother of Jesus" bit are Jewish, and the particular scholar involved was not an epigrapher, and claimed that the likelihood of 'Christians adding it because it agrees with their beliefs' is equally dodgy for HER, being Jewish and has the converse interest of proving it is NOT genuine. So, on the balance of probability, it seems genuine.

There is another way of approaching the subject of the Historical Jesus.
Start from the Bible, and see what turns up from history and archeology.

Luke is interesting in this regard.

Luke 3
-In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—
-when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea,
-Herod tetrarch of Galilee,
-his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and
-Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2
-during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas

... the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

The mention of the HighPriesthood of Annas AND Caiaphas is important.
You guys can search that one out :)

These tight historical ropes to verifiable and contemporary figures of authority (Josephus says "as well as Abilene, which had been governed by Lysanias.") leave me with the confident and firm foundation, of the Scriptures.

numbat, thanks for the effort you put into the detailed point by point rebuttal of my previous posts. Unfortunately your discussion seems to have been lost in the post and all that has made it up is your summary and a new item for discussion.

New material - the length of eternity. I assume that we are not heading off into theoretical physics and speculations about the nature of time (the possibility that it might come to an end some billions of years in the future etc). I'd agree that eternity is a bloody long time even if it ends in 20 billion years.

I'm guessing that you wish to tie that back to the current discussion so I'll take a guess at your intent and proceed.
Why I'm not particularly concerned about the length of eternity.
- nothing much I can do to change it
- I don't expect to have any awareness of any more of it than the next 30 to 50 years of it.
- If I am around for it the chances of me being able to make any kind of decision which imacts how I spend it are amazingly small.
- If the christain gospel is true I really don't want to spend eternity hanging around pandering to the christain gods need to have worshipers or finding out about the next sick twist he has in store for his creation.
- It would appear that the christain god if he exists does not want me. A couple of your fellow posters are quite strongly of the view that I was never a christain dispite about 23 years of submission and openness to that God. I can take a hint if it is made clear enough.
- Almost no chance that the christain gospel bears any relation to how a wise all knowing god would order the universe or eternity, personally I prefer the reincarnation option if I'm going to have an afterlife - "keep trying till I get it right".

I look forward to seeing the missing detail behind your previously posted summary.

R0bert

RObert: Like the irony aimed at me, I apologise if I offended you.
It seems that you and your fellow non-believers just do not understand eternity. Not 20 million years a bloody sight lot longer.
The 'christian' gospel you learned from what I can ascertain from your messages is the wrong one.
Maybe you were taught religion - man made anti-Christian religion with a dictatorial know-all well paid ministry.
This tongues business - tongues are languages, Paul went to different countries with the gift of languages. He did not babble, gabble or gobble and sound like a demented turkey.
The true Gospel is absolutely amazing and outstanding no pandering to an egotistic God. No sick twist He is way beyond that actually that is a human trait and we do it so well.
Again we are all different and yes the Eternal does want you, of course you laugh it off but the strange thing is that He not only wants you He also wants me as well. To me in the past I used to think that if this God wants to have a Father/Son relationship with me then that proved that He was not wise or All-knowing.Yet He wants, really wants us both, please hang on to this . numbat

Numbat, your just another member of the metronome mob. No substance, no answer, no fact. Just ridiculous statements of fantasy, going click clack back and forth.

When's the last time you were in eternity, or glimpsed it. Eternity doesn't exist, nor time, their concepts, with no relevance to reality. There is an accessible past, but not an accessible future, there isn't even a now, just evolving change.

You rave over this heavenly paradise, yet how many of you have actually experienced what is on the other side. More than 90% of people having near death experiences, reject the religious concept. My own experiences cut the religious bonds, showing me what is and isn't there.

My experiences opened within me insights that almost debilitated me, until I understood their relevance. That experience breaks the bonds of indoctrination, allowing you to see through the illusions and view the reality of our world.

Reincarnation is a more feasible, rational explanation for our souls journey. Just one that follows that philosophy, has more caring for the life on this planet, than the monotheistic population. If I had a material belief, then I'd certainly follow Buddhism and reincarnation, being rational and caring beleifs by their example.

I suppose that all forms of life within the universe would be in your paradise, all being gods creatures. How come he hasn't informed you of their existence, or do the metronome mob still adhere to there being no other intelligent life in the universe, just like all the other facts you refuse to accept. If he talks to you, then he would give you proof of his existence to show others and reveal his universe.

Existence is made up of many different dimensions, filled with different life forms and understandings The next evolutionary step for us, once we have thrown of the shackles of our superstitions and fears, is to move our psyche to the next dimension. Highly rational and logical, considering during life here, we move through different dimensional outlooks from conception to the grave.

Have you noticed that its the unbelievers of the "christian" god get personal and insulting?? "Metronome mob" was alchemist's favourite!
By the way alchemist, God has revealed himself to us through the prophets, and the bible. Check em out. Prophets of the bible...100% accurate. Nostradamus...5% accurate.
Like I said in a previous post, satan is a deceiver. The fight in this world is not against the flesh but of the spititual realms, good and evil, jesus and satan. And satan will do all in his power to turn people away from God. i.e, masquerading as spirits of lost loved ones, having us believe in reincarnation or aliens, etc etc.Thats My opinion though. ANd also like I said, in the end, our opinion doesnt count one iota when the end comes, if that opinion is wrong.
I had many beleifs in many things before I became a christian, all of which I believed to be the truth. Doesnt mean it was the truth does it. We all have a choice.
God gave us that choice ( I beleive), to choose to love him. As a mother, theres nothing mre beautiful than my children putting their arms around me and saying "I love you". WOuld it be as beautiful if they were programmed to say it rather than it coming from their own hearts?? As with God, he wants us to choose to love him. Thats why we aint robots, but have freewill.

I noticed theres a few mentioning evolution, and yet regard those of us who beleive in god foolish. Its a belief system. Well, so is evolution. You need a whole lot more faith to beleive in evolution than you do in God. In my humble opinion!

66 books
With around 40 different penmen most of which lived at different times throughout history.
Written in three different languages.
Written in three different continents.
and written over a period of some 2000 years.
YET IT TELL OF ONE UNIQUE STORY, GODS PLAN TO REDEEM MANKIND, But to you its just a coincidence! How blind can you be.
This book in the most read book in History
it is a perenial best seller, only two times in its history,since Guttenburgs printing press, has it been out sold in any one year.
The Harry potter book, dont know which, and The Davinci Code, both times in this decade.
This book is the most written about book in history.
the most critisised book in history.
It is paradoxily the most loved and hated book of History.
People far more intelligent than some of the self professed geniuses on this post site, regard it with awe.
this book has single handedly shaped history and nations.
yet according to the stupid and vain veiws on this site, everyone other than you were deceived.

This book and it's story has transformed the lives of billions throughout history and spreads its word through the message of Love woven through out.

To all those who doubt, you have been walking in the dark your entire lives its no wonder such a simple consideration of this topic elludes you. Just as God has a plan to bring you to the light, Satan is there to keep you in the dark and feed you rubbish. Its Satans plan for growing mushrooms.

Some scripture verses for the brethren, dont bother looking them up you other geniuses your sure to miss the point.

Thess 1:2-5, Thess 2:9-11, 1Tim 4:1-3, 1Tim 6:4-5, 2 Tim 3:1-9, Mat 7:6, finally 1Tim 6:20-21. If you get at all offended about these verses...maybe your the subject of them

Sorry for the lack of love here, but i've realised that talk without prayer is wasted effort to the deaf and blind.

GENESIS, they only get "insulting" because of your insufferable arrogance, that only YOU know the "TRUTH".
I'd rather use my brain than be an unthinking slave to any religious doctrine.
How do you know that the Moslems are not correct? What about Buddhists? What about Hindus?
Religion has kept mankind bound in stupid adherence to doctrine throughout the centuries.
Much easier to simply suspend one's thinking and analysis, isn't it? Just believe and all will be well. How incredibly childish and primitive.

Why are opinions preceded by the word 'humble', rarely what they claim to be?

Alchemist. Interesting point on the perception of 'eternity'. The idea that our perception of the values of space-time is relative to our physical state is intriguing, but like all discussions of afterlife, a little hard to arrive at any meaningful conclusions.

there seems to be an assumption (natural considering their pre-existing bias) amongst the more ardent biblical literalists, that atheists will spend 'eternity' in some kind of emptiness, a big Zero, always out in the dark as it were (some are saying hell). But this underlines a fundamental inability to understand that for the conscious individual known as 'it’s not easy being', there is not eternity, no alternative to heaven or hell or purgatory, no sitting out in the darkness looking in. nothing.

Mine, as well as all of yours, atoms will eventually return to the sun, in who's pressure and heat the complex particles that form our world were formed.

And anyway, why the hell would I want to spend eternity with the fundies on this site, who make the assumption, fairly presumptuously I think, that they will be invited to the great gig in the sky

numbat, no offence taken. There is really not a lot of space for taking offence on these threads, so much name calling and playing the man that anybody who gets to upset at that either enjoys being the victim or does not last long. Glad you enjoyed the irony, unfortunately the dreaded 350 word limit meant I chopped the bit where I conceeded the possibility that your summary could be correct although I'm not convinced. Thanks for the concern shown in your most recent post. Am I correct in assuming from your posts that you are not part of the mainstream evangelical church? Take it as read that I know their theology pretty well and no longer buy it. Anything different for me to consider that I won't get from a Big Rally Ham (an fun annogram of Billy Graham) or the local Baptist church? If it's AOG or similar type theology save your posts, you might want them for something else.

GENESIS,
Have you noticed that its the unbelievers of the "christian" god
get personal and insulting??

I had not noticed that we cornered the market on those traits, maybe your observation is a reflection of your own biases. As with most of these things the tone of debate tends to reflect the way people prefer to debate, their beliefs about their audience and their level of frustration with those they are debating with. Have a read of some of the comments by some believers of the christain god about muslims on other threads for an idea how personal and insulting they can be.

R0bert

There are none more blind than those who don't want to see… none more dumb than those who don’t want to believe.

Al, you forgot your medication again mate. I wish you could hear yourself repeating that nonsense you always come up with. And have the audacity to call us metronomes? Thanks for the laughter… it breaks the metronomy…

It could have been entertaining to read that ‘stuff’ if it weren’t so horrifying. But it still proves one point though: man’s insatiable spiritual hunger. If it’s not a religion of sort they will make one, or just fill that vacuum with hot air as we observe here.

The only person that can fill that space is the same person who created it. Jesus the Christ.

But the little geniuses are persistent in proving him wrong and re-inventing his universe.

How sad.

Yes I agree – prayer is the answer… that the blind may see and the dead would come alive.

Boaz, even you have to accept that Josephus was not a contemporary of the Jesus you are attempting to pin down, historically speaking. If you apply the usual rules of evidence to his pair of cryptic sentences, you would be forced to conclude "hearsay".

But as a believer, you choose to believe. That's fine. No problem.

As to the ossuary, the same doubts have to apply. Even the proponents of its genuineness have to admit that "about 20 people [in that city at that time] could be called 'James son of Joseph brother of Jesus'" So even if we assume for a moment it wasn't the forgery it was reported to be in May 2003, it is still only a 20-1 shot that it refers to the guy you want it to refer to.

But if you believe it to be so, so be it. No problem.

[Incidentally, what about all those Catholics who still believe all Jesus' siblings were in fact cousins? Where do they fit in? Couldn't you allow them their beliefs also? They are particularly keen on the "Mary as perpetual Virgin" view.]

There still remains one puzzle. If Jesus went around doing all the things you believe he did - walking on water, feeding the multitude with loaves and fishes etc. - how come we don't have one single, solitary contemporary account? Surely, someone would have considered them significant enough events to grab a chisel and a piece of stone...

"Hold the front tablet! Man turns water into wine at party! Alcoholics Anonymous horrified: 'think what it does to the kids'. Police warn: 'do not drink this water before operating heavy machinery'"

But more than anything else, I was asking Val, as a newcomer to the forum, to be very careful how arguments are presented here. Flippancy such as "We're therefore left with three alternatives for Jesus. Either he was a lunatic, a liar or Lord.", does not cut the mustard here. Opinions are fine. Beliefs are also fine. But trying to pass either one off as "fact" is not fine, and will be jumped upon.

Noone answered my post on slavery, etc being condoned in the Bible. Including Blessed whodidn't address the actual passages.

Edi says I'm selective about what I believe, but I gave you the passages. Go read them in context, don't fudge with excuses and tell me you what you truly think.

Martin-I'm not arguing about Jesus. It's God in the Bible who's punishing and cruel. How can anyone call him a God of Love? A god who's so vicious he would torture people with scorpions so they scream for death Rev.9:4-6.

You say disbelievers damn themselves to hell, the call of criminals throughout history-'you asked for it'. Men say it to women they rape, to men they beat and kill, torturers to their victims. It's the catchcry of anyone who's abusive to another. I don't ask for it. I refuse to call a God who would do that to others kind or loving. If some man locked someonein a room with bitingscorpions for 5months-would you think him loving? Why judge God so differently? Christians don't judge God-god can do anything gruesome he wants and you will follow him.

Edi-"Do you really believe that you can make a smorgasboard of gods and just pick what you like and discard what you dont." This is exactly what you're doing. You have chosen one God out of a smorgasbord. The difference is simply I made a different choice to you and I'm honest enough to say I don't like parts of the Bible instead of pretending they're not there or 'are taken out of context'.

"... sorry i'm truly not that big a gambler." You're just as big a gambler because you make one choice among myriads, just as I have. There are other religions that believe you will go to hell for being a christian you know.

The religion of John the Baptist, still existing in Iran, says Christ was a disciple who went astray- they are pacifists. Paul's teachings were rejected by the Church in Jerusalem because he taught circumcision and Kosher were unneccessary-so you don't even follow the original Christian religion.

Edi-Its not simple. There are other systems that believe in God, have rules, morals,encourage love and compassion towards others. What makes Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) stand out is their intolerance of other religions and philosophies and insistence others are evil.

Every day christians are enjoying what other religions and non-christian impulses have given them. Democracy was developed in Pagan Greece. The whole structure of government was passed down from the Roman Model that developed in paganism. Citizenship was a pagan invention. Welfare for the poor was a pagan concept before christianity came along. The MagnaCarta and the Abolition of Slavery were both against the doctrine of theBible-even though you may ignore the passages in the Bible that support that, the opponents of these, living then, didn't. Before Christianity and in countries where christianity hasn't predominated people have lived, loved their partners, loved their children,loved their fellow man, given charity, sacrificed their lives for others, developed technologies, worked hard just as christians have.

Your ancestry includes a long chain of pagan parents who loved their children. They held their babies in their arms dreaming of good things for them without ever imagining their descendents would call their beliefs evil and they will burn in hell for all eternity. How heart wrenching to think your descendants could think that of you.

Our mental institutions are full of people who believe God talks to them and others are possessed by evil spirits.Have you ever had anything to do with schizophrenics? Do you know how many of their delusions are full of the pit and demons and evil spirits? Do you know that in by far the majority of cases with religious delusions they believe they're good and that others are evil devils out to get them? The cruellest thing you can do to a schizophrenic is give them the Bible especially Revelations.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonrevelation.html -Charles Manson thought himself the fifth angel of the apocalypse.Does that surprise me?

edi-you pulled short of saying Ghandi was going to heaven.So I found the passage for you:(Mark16:16) only baptised people go to heaven. Ghandi is in Hell.

froggie. open your eyes and read my posts again. I never said ONLY I had the TRUTH, and YOU were WRONG. I said IN MY OPINION I BELIEVE I FOUND THE TRUTH. In your opinion, its not. I was talking about opinions not mattering in the end, whether the ultimate truth is what I beleive or what you beleive. Who has the larger consequence?
As for islam, hindu etc etc, , I did a comparative religions course on the worlds 5 major religions 8 years ago, and I came to the conclusion about my current beliefs. Thats how I think christianity is right and the others are wrong. Not because Im pig headed, but I weighed up the facts. To be honest, I was rather hoping buddhism would be the one to convict me, being a lot more popular, christianity being at the bottom of the list. But I couldnt deny what I learned.

its not being easy...said.."Mine, as well as all of yours, atoms will eventually return to the sun, in who's pressure and heat the complex particles that form our world were formed."..and you say the bible is fantasy:o) By the way, christians wont BE invited to the big gig in the sky, weve already been invited. And beleive it or not, so have you, all you have to do is accept the invitation.

Aziliz I don’t understand, don’t you consider the Gospels a contemporary account?

Perhaps Christianity (The Way) was successful against such antagonistic cultures because there were people around who could verify these incidents. Back then people thought “dare we write?” now its “what shall we write?”. Those that witnessed these things were responsible for his large following and his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Matthew finally organized his account while being hunted by the Jews (he was eventually murdered by them).

Rules of evidence? This is a good site for the rules applied to ancient secular documents.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

Christians believe God is all good. Good and evil look different depending on one’s perspective, wisdom and understanding. If a child’s tooth has to be pulled to prevent septicaemia and death, the child won’t believe it to be a mercy – pulling the tooth hurts. She’ll know it to be an evil.

Lets talk seriously for a moment. God said “to whom much has been given much is expected”. Also “You did not choose me I chose you”

God exists he’s worked in my life – yet despite what I’d known previously I have willfully sinned against Him – knowing full well what I was doing. I didn’t want to do what I knew God wanted. I suffered afterwards, yet I repeated it. Darkness replaced joy, my thinking altered too.

I’m able to imagine continuing that willfulness just for the sake of it, just because I could hurt God whom I knew loved me, whom I knew was all powerful – The Mightly God I can spit in his face! The prodigal son didn’t lack for love yet still chose his course of action.

For those who know really what they’re doing. What do you expect from God in this instance? Hell is a mercy when depravity can spiral onwards for eternity. Hate begets hate for ever! Hell is a kind of tourniquet perhaps.

“Those who sin against the Son of Man will be forgiven those who sin against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven”. This applies to Christians, those who know

because of the light given them by the Spirit – yet it is these that can sin in the most deadly way.

Aziliz, often the parts of the Bible we find the most repugnant offer the most insight. I know that was the case with me and the doctrine of the Fall. Alternatively there is an excellent example of contextualization of the Jewish settling of Canaan and the battles that took place there.

“How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?”
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

Aziliz Christianity has always absorbed what is best of life. People born before Christ searched everywhere for Salvation, they would think we extremely fortunate to know Jesus. Just because they were born before doesn’t mean they’re excluded, Jesus’ works forward and back in time.

Nothing good is foreign to God. Read Matthew ‘the sheep and the goats’. How is Christianity’s ability to absorb the good an argument against it? I don’t follow.

Aziliz I think you’re right to reject the God you describe. He’s certainly not my God.

Lots of ppl have thought they were gods eg Alexander the Great 330 BC. The thing about Christ is – no King after 0 AD can think that now. Also no outcast can now ever think they are too low for God, no matter how low we sink he’s been there before us and can look us in the eye. Christ makes the great person humble and the lowly person great.

Schizophrenics mmm is it possible they know things we don’t? But lack the ability to integrate it and share it? Is normalcy effective for infernal purposes? Absolutely. The illusion that everything is going normally is terrific for guiding people into the abyss. The chattering classes and the cultured despisers of Christianity think they’re fantastically sane. lol But I don’t know, are you really saying religious ideas increase the suffering of schizophrenics? Could it be that schizophrenics know they’re sick and want a doctor? I don’t know.

Dear Pericles...

you ask for a contempary account of Jesus of Nazereth, Son of God.
I can only offer you the gospels.. they are as close to contemporary as one could reasonably expect. Considering all other major figures of history of around that time.... the gospels are extremely worthwhile. To me they are without question the Word of God to man. Textual issues and discoveries simply refine and confirm that Word.

By all means search them out, and refer also to the worst higher critical scholarship. They can stand such a test.

Strangely enough, I find the hadith of Islam to be a very strong case for the accuracy of the gospels. A similar process, though the time between the gathering together of the information for the gospels was much much shorter than for the Hadith.

I think ultimately, it will come down to ones own heart, and willingness or lack thereof to see rather than just look, and to hear rather than just listen. The parables of Jesus are so easy to remember, and that's why so much of his teaching was in that form.

I find no motive in the gospels apart from bringing the Word of Salvation to mankind. I see no 'Church' vested interest, nor human benefit. So much of Christs teaching goes against the grain of human nature, it would have been long filtered out or modified if 'ulterior motive' became involved.

"He who hears my word, and does it, is like the man who built his house on the rock, and the storm and wind came.. and it stood"

take care

Just a quick thought...

I know I don't have the words, or the experience, or the scientific knowledge, or the historical knowledge to refute these arguments (and they are fair comments). I can't explain to you my own beliefs, and the knowledge that God is with me through every moment of the day, and that He has guided me my whole life. I have no 'facts' to back this up.

What I can suggest, though, is that you look to those with scientific backgrounds who have refuted much of what is claimed about evolution. These are not just religious 'quacks', they are world-respected scientists, who have been able to back up their claims through science.

I grew up with many of the Christian 'myths' that have been used to refute evolution, etc, and have tried to use them in the past. But now I try to base my arguments on 'fact'. You will find these scientists even discourage the use of these old arguments, that have been proven false.

A book I can recommend (I am sure there are many others) is called "The Answers Book", written by the Answers in Genesis organisation. These people have been known in the past as "Creation scientists" (not to be confused with "Christian Scientists"). A copy of this is available electronically:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/index.asp

As I said, I am not intelligent enough to be able to debate this subject without being ridiculed. But guys, I recommend you read this through thoroughly. The worst that can happen is you'll find more ammunition to fire back with, and good for you if you can find fault with their science. This book certainly helped answer a lot of questions for me, regarding evolution, dinosaurs, new discoveries, etc.

As these guys say, whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, your arguments will depend on where your suppositions start.

I dare you, therefore, to actually read this document through, and refute their 'evidence', as you can so easily refute the 'evidence' of the post-ers on this site.

:-)

For those who may be interested (because it is related to the original topic...) I've just seen an ad on the ABC for this weeks' Compass program on Sunday night. I believe it's titled something like: CS Lewis - life after Narnia.

Should/could be interesting...

:-)

Tacitus Written in aprox AD 100, earliest copy made aprox AD 1100, time lapse between copies 1000 years, number of copies 20

Caesars Gallic wars Written 58-50BC, earliest copy AD 900, Time lapse between copies 950 years, number of copies 10

The closest item of historical writing that can even come close to the New testament is Homers Iliad

It was written down around 800BC, Earliest copy made around AD 200, Time lapse between copies 1000 years, number of copies 650 with a 95% textual accuracy

New testament, written down between 40-100 AD aprox, earliest copies AD 130, time lapse between copies only 30 years, Number of copies, More than 24,000 In Greek, Latin, Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian with 99.5% Textural accuracy.
The Data for ALL the above includes pieces of the manuscripts also.

Even if you do your usual historical Gymnastics with the details, this must be considered impressive, even for the blind.


I cant sum it up any better than Paul's note in the NT, to which no Historian denies he wrote '....they are without excuse'. and just so you can get the context, its found in Romans Chapter 1 verses 18 through to 22.

Before i forget verse 22 states 'Proffesing to be wise, they became fools.'

As a historical figure and the idea of Myth, the Narratives of Jesus the Christ, and certainly the belief in Him as God come down, was penned within the lifetime of witnesses. Compare this to the biography of Alexander the Great not writen until 500 years after death. Which is the most likely to develop Mythical substance?

Come on guys, wake up!
Whether you like it or not Jesus gave His life for you to have life, and the option to take up this offer WILL EXPIRE on your death.

Boaz, I'm not trying to disqualify anything here...

>>I can only offer you the gospels.. they are as close to contemporary as one could reasonably expect.<<

All I am doing is asking questions. I have no doubt that you have weighed up all the evidence and convinced yourself that "near enough is good enough", and I don't have a problem with that.

However, when using ones beliefs as facts with which to beat others over the head, metaphorically speaking, I have to protest. The interesting aspect of it all to me is not whether one side of the argument prevails or doesn't prevail - after all, there can be no real proof in situations like this, only diverging opinions - but the substance and quality of the evidemce used.

And for me - not for you, for me - it is extremely thin.

edi - I read your words with some interest, but found myself asking the same question over and over...

>>Tacitus Written in aprox AD 100, earliest copy made aprox AD 1100, time lapse between copies 1000 years... Caesars Gallic wars Written 58-50BC, earliest copy AD 900, Time lapse between copies 950 years, number of copies 10...Homers Iliad... was written down around 800BC, Earliest copy made around AD 200, Time lapse between copies 1000 years, number of copies 650...<<

What did they copy from?

What exactly is the significance of the time delay involved? Are you implying some form of textual degradation over time? Please enlighten me.

RObert:We are not a part of any mainstream Church
Have been members of this Church since 1965. This Church was at one time a very hard line, fundamentalist group. Then God through the Holy Spirit changed us, the only Church in modern times to do so, completely. Now, though far less in numbers we are a Christ centred Church.
We are over 20 miles away so only attend on ocassions but do a lot of private study using various sources.
Beliefs: 1. Cannot attain to the righteousness demanded by God, can't even get close.
2.Try by our own efforts to obey the 'big ten' or the sermon on the mount. Not only are we doomed to failure but we run the risk of becoming self-righteous, which in itself is a sin.
3. Accept Christ as Saviour God then imputes Christ's righteousness to us. We live a Christian life and we see ourselves as God's responsibility. So look to Him to change us and He does so very slowly and it is ALL His work - not ours.
4. God wants us and has made it available to us through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.
The crucified thief looked to Christ and he was told "today you will be with Me in Paradise" This criminal had never been to services, may have been a Gentile so never observed the 'big ten'
Hope I haven't semonised. numbat

Azilis, you asked edi:

“What makes Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) stand out...

I can only answer for Christianity:

Jesus.

All other religions have:
1. a dead leader (Jesus is eternally alive)
2. a set of DIY rules and rituals
3. a no/false belief in Jesus

Pericles asks:

If Jesus went around doing all the things you believe he did - walking on water, feeding the multitude with loaves and fishes etc. - how come we don't have one single, solitary contemporary account?

Answer: we have 4 historical accounts in the new testament – read it.

its not easy being laments:

…, why the hell would I want to spend eternity with the fundies on this site […] they will be invited to the great gig in the sky

Sorry mate you are not on the guest list (yet)

Froggie exclaims,

>>GENESIS …only YOU know the "TRUTH".
I'd rather use my brain than be an unthinking slave to any religious doctrine.
Much easier to simply suspend one's thinking and analysis, isn't it? Just believe and all will be well. How incredibly childish and primitive.<<

Indeed mate, indeed.

The Alchemist has another prophetic moment:

“There is an accessible past, but not an accessible future, there isn't even a now, just evolving change.”

”My own experiences (near death ?) cut the religious bonds, showing me what is and isn't there…(the illusions) and view the reality of our world.”

”Reincarnation is a more feasible, rational explanation for our souls journey. …”

"The next evolutionary step for us, once we have thrown of the shackles of our superstitions and fears, is to move our psyche to the next dimension… Highly rational and logical,…”

Al, let's talk when you're back to planet earth

and the prize goes to (drumroll)

R0bert the explorer, (splash!)

>>…, personally I prefer the reincarnation option if I'm going to have an afterlife - "keep trying till I get it right".<<

The alchemist:You come across as a sad, miserable creature one who just will not entertain any new thing.
No, as any ten year old could tell you,I have never been in eternity.
Ditto for Heavenly Paradise
These people with a 'death's door'experience? did they actually die?
My experiences show me an orderly Creator and I want to be "indoctrinated?" by Him.
Reincarnation is NOT! an option so you won't come back as a cockroach or anything else - sorry.
I do not know who or what God will have in Paradise, God just hasn't asked for my advice and I doubt that He will ask you.
There IS intelligent Life in the universe this Life made it all.
As there is NO evolution then there will not be any 'upwards' step for us as a species. Unless you see going to Heaven/Paradise or whatever you may term it the next "evolutionary" step
In spite of your present beliefs this God you reject has not rejected you He sees you as unique and wants you to be with Him for eternity. numbat

Coach, this is simply not an answer.

>>how come we don't have one single, solitary contemporary account?

Answer: we have 4 historical accounts in the new testament<<

How on earth do you expect to be taken even remotely seriously when you make statements like that?

It is the equivalent of you asking me "how come there are gaps in fossil history, doesn't that affect your thoughts on evolution?" and me answering "but look, we have lots of fossils".

Do you see the disconnect?

I'm sure that if tomorrow's Sydney Morning Herald reported that a man was raised from the dead in the CBD fifty years ago, someone would ask why they didn't think it worth reporting at the time.

Don't you think?

And while you are pondering that, can you also explain to me why there are plenty of lurid descriptions of the travails we can expect in hell, but no-one has yet been able to walk us through one single day in heaven?

Will we be as smart and beautiful as we are on earth? More so? Or less so, so we can practice humility? Can we choose what age we will be?

The assumption has to be that we retain some aspects of our corporeal existence in order to enjoy the torments of hell, but does this also apply to heaven? Or are we suddenly non-corporeal spirits? Do we think? Feel? Love?

And if it is to be the destination of christian believers, why isn't it more widely advertised through colourful descriptions of what people actually do, once they get there? Surely a little positive reinforcement wouldn't go astray...

By the way, this eternity thing scares me. Only death gives meaning to life, you know. "Living", or just "being" forever sounds like hell. Even if I do get to learn the harp.

And is it the same heaven for all religious sub-sets - do the catholics rub shoulders with episcopalians (I have no idea what an episcopalian is, but it sounds impressive) and proddy dogs from Ulster?

Enquiring minds need to know

Once again no christian answered my posts on slavery, etc. Why doesn't anyone answer? This is the third time I have asked.

Martin the difference between Pauline Chrisitanity and the Church of Jerusalem comes from a variety of sources including "Who wrote the New Testament?" by Burton Mack. The source documents used are primarily from the Pauline sections of the NT.

You say you are happy to accept what is repugnant in the bible. I don't approve of child sacrifice but nor do I genocide and the argument in the link you supplied says it was alright for Jehovah to order the israelites to massacre the very children of the Canaanites that were in danger of being sacrificed. Why, because he knew they would grow up to be bad people. In fact the whole article proves my point-that christianity encourages people to think others are evil and therefore have no rights-to the point they are prepared to slaughter them.

I'm well aware human sacrifice and cannibalism was widespread (not just the Canaanites) - I don't approve of it but I do try to understand why it was so universal.

In Egypt the religion of Osiris and Isis wiped out human sacrifice and cannibalism (Christianity didn't). Osiris travelled the land teaching people how to sow crops so they could use grain to make bread to eat instead of people. This gives a good revelation of why people were cannibalistic beforehand - they were hungry. Osiris gave them grain instead to get through lean times.

Israel sent his children into Egypt during famine because EGYPT HAD GRAIN and the Israelites then lived there 400 years, long enough to be influenced by their religion. Osiris was a dying and resurrected god whose body was eaten in the form of bread and his blood as wine - just like Jesus is.

Herodotus (5th Century BC) says the Egyptians found human sacrifice abhorrent. They had stopped the practice well before the Greeks did. The Osiris religion has inscriptions dating back to the third millenium BC

The Egyptians were called the children of Ham. If you know your Bible then you would know Ham is one of the three children of Noah. The Canaanites are also the descendants of Ham -a relative race to the Egyptians. Isis of the Egyptians is the Bible's hated Ishtar of the Canaanites.

Isn't that a joke? The very religion that in Egypt wiped out human sacrifice and probably influenced the Israelites, in another branch is remembered forever for human sacrifice. Of course the Christians only want to remember the bad bits. As Martin says, the christians take all the good bits from other cultures and religions and then turn around and call them evil. Talk about a lack of gratitude.

Even so there are episodes of human sacrifice in the Bible that are a source of a lot of controversy. Such as Jephthah's daughter Judges 11:29-40 which most scholars agree was a case of human sacrifice and also a law in Leviticus that directs the israelites to do human sacrifice: 27:28 27:29 also Exodus 22:29; Numbers 31:25-29; and of course Genesis 22:2

All that aside, if God says - "Go slaughter all those people because they have offended me" that is a human sacrifice for a god anyway.

Martin, condoning genocide and the murder of innocents and thinking that schizophrenics 'know something' when they go on a killing spree because of the Revelations is twisted.

coach - I didn't ask Edi, I told her what differentiated Christianity from other faiths. Your three points are 1. wrong (as I posted earlier) 2. Just saying 'we are better' without defining why 3. Saying others are no good because they arent Christians. You are not debating at all.

All I have seen on this forum is simply "We are right because we believe in God" - even to justify tortures, slavery, murder of innocents, genocide etc Well if that is what you believe then who can argue with you. You simply say - anything is alright if God did it, or told us to do it.

Aziliz, I find the circular logic employed facinating.
The following is my paraphrasing of how I read the discussion.

Q How do you know that God is good?
A Because he says he is?
Q How do you know that you can trust God?
A Because he is good.

I've also got the distinct impression that the christain Gospel boils down to.

Kind of interesting how in the end the message seems to boil down to "God is a LOVING and JUST God and you'd better accept that or you will burn in HELL for eternity, get it, and don't you dare question wether he is a LOVING and JUST God or you are even more dammed" (sorry about the capitals Kay but they are fun sometimes).

It seems that most of the christain posters are unable to comprehend that there are a variety of other speculations around regarding the afterlife, God, mans place in the scheme of things etc, or else they do comprehend it and try and stop people considering the possibility by the claim that it is extroadinarly arrogant to try and make an informed choice about those specuulations and other varieties of attempted intimidation.

R0bert

Azilis,

Let me correct you and bring exactly what you said:

>>Edi-Its not simple. There are other systems that believe in God, have rules, morals,encourage love and compassion towards others. What makes Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) stand out is their intolerance of other religions and philosophies and insistence others are evil.<<

Now go back and read my answer.

You also seem to be stuck in the old testament - time to move on...
You ask too many questions - maybe you expect us to tell you "you're right Azilis we all got it wrong - thanks for pointing that out and saving humanity..."

e.g. There was a reason why people offered blood sacrifices in the OT but now it's no longer needed. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.

No offense but if your Q's were genuine I'm sure you'll find plenty of sites on the net to satisfy your hunger for answers. This is OLO.

Pericles,

My answer to the first part of your post is still the same. The word of God is immortal. What was written 2000 years ago is as fresh as today’s paper. Read it.

As for your second set of questions; ditto -

“Enquiring minds need to know”

Enquiring minds need to read – I wouldn’t want to spoil the plot for you. Get it directly from the source. I'm sure you can manage that instead of making a fool of yourself on OLO.

CS Lewis in his book 'The Great Divorce' is a short book about Heaven and Hell Pericles. You could get it from the library maybe, otherwise its not that expensive its a short book.

Heaven to us will be like the 3-D world to a 2-D cartoon. If a 2D cartoon encountered our drawing of a cube, representing depth he would think it was just a couple of squares offset from one another and connected by straight lines. Those 2D 'believers' who tried to tell him that it was a representation of what the other world was like would be scoffed at.

"I know what they are, its nothing like what you say. They're just squares you silly people"

That is what earthly life is like, everything is an image of the divine or infernal life.

This is not our home, we were made for Heaven. There will be no more seperation, no lack and desire. Complete comsummation. We become the music I think CS Lewis said.

I want to join everyone in that community, in that family. I don't want to worship in the religion of myself, that gets me nowhere. Its a lie.

A great banquet has been prepared for us by someone who loves us, we'd have to be made to reject all the info we've been given.

They're all lies - the ones that whisper "loving God will turn you into a slave. You can't survive the loss of all that you think is your self. God is cruel. You'll die."

Just wait for the other spirit who'll tell you "now this is the life!"

Dear Pericles
my last post must have canonned of you and out into the nether world or something :)

But regarding heaven.
Plenty of references if you look for them. You can gain an overview from such sites as even 'Religious Tolerance' which provide the various views from across the spectrum. (from the sublime to the rediculous)

Pauls expressed it as "With Christ" and it was something he longed for.

Rev 21
"Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Sounds pretty good to me. Please note the absence of 'sensual' pleasures which could attract people for the wrong reasons. Quite a contrast to the self indulgent and 'smothered in servants/virgins/slaves' of the Islamic paradise, which is to me just an extension of the carnal desires of the natural man. Quite obviously one of those "Religion/God made in the image/imagination of man".

Heaven and the afterlife are more about the deepest longings of man being fulfilled, rather than shallow and transitory sensuality. So, sorry.. NO sex in heaven :) (and the absense of the desire for it)
The lion will lay down with the lamb etc.. imagery of peace.

I guess to those who do not know the reality of Christ in their hearts, 'heaven' as portrayed here may not seem so attractive. But that is what being 'born of the Spirit' is about, it also changes our centre of gravity as a person. I think it would be a grave mistake to project our current understanding of life and existence (with its inherant limits) onto a "heaven" subject to those same limits and experiences. Heaven will be a place/condition of ultimate joy.

The metronome mobs replies certainly gives weight to the theory of reincarnation, which follows the theory of growing intelligence as one evolves through many reincarnations. For those of little knowledge, reincarnation does not prescribe that we return as animals, but that all life has a series of reincarnative lives according to their species.

It goes this way, in our first life we know nothing except what we are programed with in natural life. In subsequent incarnations, we reach the stage of superstition, fear and illusion (religion). This can go through many incarnations because of the reluctance of many to step beyond their fears into the reality of evolving knowledge.

Next stage is when we see that our fears are unfounded and the reality of evolving knowledge breaks the shroud of superstition, allowing us to see our universe as a constantly evolving and changing reality.

Then we reach the stage, when we can see beyond this existence and realise that we can leave this reincarnative state and move forward to the next dimensional evolution.

Those unable to break free of their illusional superstitions, keep reincarnating until they run out of lives. So like all things that have passed their use by date, they are shuttled to the eternal tip, commonly called heaven.

As our species and others have evolved since life began on earth, so has the first reincarnation. Now new beings reincarnate at the lowest intelligence level of this time, ie religion.

So there, my story is better, more scientifically possible, rational and logical, than all of yours, nah nah nah nah nah.

To the poor sod who stated, “These people with a 'death's door' experience? did they actually die?” describe your expertise and experience in this matter. Typical comment from know nothings, I can describe my personal experiences in vivid detail. Denying this, surely defeats your believe in intelligence after death

Aziliz, sorry I'm a He not a Her, bit hard to tell over the this forum we lose some dimention here.

The difference with Christianity is GRACE.
the Substitutionary Atonement of God He died in our place.

Like i said before Religion is mans way to God and Grace through Christ is Gods way to man.

Also Aziliz, your understanding of scripture is only superficial. when God wiped out a race of people, the bible seems clear to indicate that there were impurities.

Satan did all he could to corrupt the line of man, he had fallen angles lay with daughters of men, genesis 6:2 these Hybrid offspring also seemed to be the main reason for the Flood.
Bible talks of Noah being perfect in His generations Gen 6:9
But also states that this Hybrid problem was to continue post flood Gen 6:4

The result was a people which the Bible calls 'Mighty men...men of renown' which could account for many of the Greek tales of giants, and other 'gods' in their Mythologies.
There were a number of tribes such as the Rephaim, the Emim, the Horim, and Zamsummim that were giants.

The kingdom of Og, the King of Bashan, was the "land of the giants." Later, we also find Arba, Anak, and his seven sons (the "Anakim") also as giants, along with the famed Goliath11 and his four brothers.

When God had revealed to Abraham that the land of Canaan was to be given to him, Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim in his attempt to thwart the plan of God.Gen15:13-21

Moses sent his twelve to reconnoiter the Land of Canaan, they came back with the report of giants in the land. (The very Hebrew term used was Nephilim.) Their fear of them resulted in their being relegated to wandering in the wilderness for 38 years. When Joshua later entered the land of Canaan, and wipe out every man woman and child (which is disturbingly severe)it would seem that in the Land of Canaan, there once again was a "gene pool problem."

This is by far the most illuminating thread on religious beliefs so far... way ahead of that very worthy, but very dull, new piece by Mr Sellick.

What we have here is not a discussion confined to the minutiae of a debate between religious scholars and their petty factions, but a fundamental, basic, raw analysis of what is what.

coach has already given up, and resorted to mumblings... "What was written 2000 years ago is as fresh as today’s paper. Read it.. Get it directly from the source. I'm sure you can manage that instead of making a fool of yourself on OLO."

Insults don't work here, coach, get a grip.

Martin offers another C S Lewis fantasy as a descriptor of heaven. Did you read it, Martin? It is actually a dream, which allows the narrator to avoid all the difficult questions that he poses in the body of the book. Much as a nine-year-old's adventure story will end, just in time, with "...and then I woke up".

By the way, it is also inconsistent with the many bible references to heaven. Paul had a similar idea to C S Lewis of the qualifications to reach heaven, that a thirty-second profession of faith (by a sinner) was a qualification to enter, while a religious and virtuous lifetime was, of itself, not. This is at odds with fellow gospellers Matthew, Mark, and Luke who emphasized salvation by good deeds and attitudes. How can we get there if we don't know the rules?

(Incidentally, when did heaven introduce the internal combustion engine? And if visitors still tour around on a bus, they can't have found an alternative source of energy yet... sorry, greenies)

What are we to make of this? Is the existence of heaven an integral part of the Christian faith? If so, why are there many different images of its composition, and variations on the qualifications required for membership?

I suspect the answer doesn't really matter, since it is the concept of eternal damnation that has been the major coercion factor over the centuries. The stick, not the carrot.

Edi
That was a rippingly good yarn you just posted...
I wonder if the "fallen angels", were in fact aliens?
I also like the Alchemist's story. Did you see "Blackadder" on UK TV last night? They had the one about the Archbishop on last night, that was good fun, too.
All good fun, but I'm not sure it gets us any closer to reality.
All the best anyway...

The alchemist: You are still here abusing those who have differing opinions so SURELY! that is proof - even to a self proclaimed genius like you that you did not die that time. Next time - maybe!
Any, repeat any scientist knows of the VAST gulf between the living and non-living. I can shoot an animal and it is DEAD or if you prefer DED, not living, devoid of life, incapable of movement, that's DEAD!! and it has buckley's of coming back to life. You did NOT return from the dead so maybe you are not so special. numbat

Pericles, in relation to your question.

yes there is a science called textural critisism which says that the more copies found, the more they can be compared, the more accurate they can be assumed to be.

And the closer the date of writing to the original the more reliable.

With regards to your question What did they copy from?

Most are copies of copies which enevitably find their way back to the autographs (originals)

Interesting note is that these copies were found all over the known world in such a small time frame, within less than two hundred years.

There is evidence the four Gospels were circulating together by 120 AD.

and the fact that they were all written within the lifetime of witnesses, people who could in fact reject the claims, give the gosples unique standing as reliable source materials.

if you as still sceptical we have enough information from sources outside the bible that we could outline numerous aspects of life of Jesus.

We would know that;
• Jesus actually did live and breathe
• He was a Jewish teacher
• Many people believe he performed healings and exorcisms
• Some believed He was the messiah
• He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
• He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
• That despite his shameful death his followers believed He lived and faith in him spread beyond the borders of Palestine until there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64ad
• All kinds of people from the cities and the country side, slave and free, rich and poor, men and women worshipped Him as God.

There is far too much here to simply ignore

Let me try again.

">>Tacitus Written in aprox AD 100, earliest copy made aprox AD 1100, time lapse between copies 1000 years... Caesars Gallic wars Written 58-50BC, earliest copy AD 900, Time lapse between copies 950 years, number of copies 10...Homers Iliad... was written down around 800BC, Earliest copy made around AD 200, Time lapse between copies 1000 years, number of copies 650...<<

What did they copy from?"

You replied:

>>With regards to your question What did they copy from?

Most are copies of copies which enevitably find their way back to the autographs (originals)<<

So, how does this mesh with your statement

>>And the closer the date of writing to the original the more reliable.<<

Surely, if there was a time lapse of 1000 years between copies, this is a greater assurance that there have been no changes - you have the original in front of you, n'est-ce pas? On the other hand, if a thousand years later I was copying a copy of a copy of a copy...?

Even allowing your list of "this we know", nowhere on that list can you find contemporary evidence of miracles.

The best you can come up with is "Many people believe he performed healings and exorcisms", but surely their belief is coloured by the retrospective stories? "I heard someone say that fifty years ago this guy Jesus turned water into wine" is not exactly compelling.

Once again, I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm only saying that there is a deafening lack of evidence for it. And in the absence of evidence, it is obvious that you will either choose to believe, as you do, or you won't.

In the meantime, it is interesting to see the creation of a mighty edifice of "he did this, he did that" stories, from such flimsy foundations.

I find it amazing that alchemist can say the bible, god, jesus, religion etc etc is fantasy, false, blah blah, and then come up with that story of reincarnation. Heehee. It did make me laugh I msut say. How can our spirit or soul whatever you believe it to be, jump from this body to the next everytime you die?? Thats much more far fetched than a living God.

All this about the gospels not being a good source for our information. These guys wrote something that they were eyewitnesses to. It may have been 30 or so years later, but they were still eyewitnesses. Imagine we live in a time with no media, no movies, no tv, nothing. Would we beleive the stories we heard of the holocaust to be false, just cos no one wrote about it 50 years ago. Of course not. Cos the people who were there, those who lived it, are still around to tell us. Just as the disciples were. Who all by the way, went to their deaths for this tale they were telling. You might get one or 2 lunatics willing to die for a lie, but would you get all those men to tell the lie, stick to it, and then die for it?? I doubt it.
Something else to think about. If you went to court to see a man up for trial who raped your daughter, and the judge let him off because it was his first offence, you'd be outraged at this crook they call a judge. Would he be a loving judge? His verdict isnt just. Well God is a just God, and all sin needs to be punished. When God punishes someone, it aint cos he's a cruel God, but cos he;s a just God. If he let people off for their sin, he'd be just as crook as that judge.

Spot on Robert. Its not worth trying to get a discussion going is it? Sigh.

Coach - when I said noone had answered my previous post on slavery, etc you were supposed to look back at that original post and read it. If you had you would have seen all the quotes were from the New Testament and then you would have had something to answer.

The reference to the Canaanites was in answer to Martin - Martin brought up the Old Testament not me and he is a christian. Go back and read his post and the link he gives and then you may get mine in context.

I was not talking about blood sacrifice - I was talking about human sacrifice. Blood sacrifice can refer to animals not just humans.

And the snippet you clipped from my post proves my point and not yours - you may not realise it but others probably will.

Edi - sorry about the gender mix up.

The Caananites are an historical race and they weren't giants - they were quite short of stature. You may also know them as the Phoenicians. They traded and settled throughout the meditteranean. Some settled in Carthage on the shores of Africa and they fought major wars with Rome (the Punic Wars) just two hundred years before Christ, they founded Marseilles and their ancient colonies and descendents are everywhere they weren't wiped out they just eventually intermingled with other races.

Solomon was best friends with the Canaanite King, King Hiram of Tyre who gave heaps of materials for the building of the temple of Jehovah that Solomon is so famous for building. The architect for the temple was another Hiram who was half Hebrew and half Canaanite.

The Canaanites were the first race to develop an alphabet and the Greeks modelled their alphabet on it as did all the races of the mediterranean - that includes our alphabet. They were brilliant traders, fabulous seafarers. They had huge cities on the coast of Palestine surrounded by very thick walls. They grew flax and made fine linen, they were the source of the best purple dyes and great copper mines. There lands were rich in crops of grain and grape, fig and date. The little Israelite goatherding tent dwellers who had just stumbled out of 40 years in the wilderness had reason to be frightened of attacking them, they were pretty pathetic in comparison (at that time). They actually never matched them. The closest they got was Solomon - and as I said the friend Solomon was most proud of was the Canaanite King Hiram of Tyre.

Really this list is too Christianity focussed. We should be talking more about the Norse Asatru religion and the Greek Pagan religion as they have an enormous influence on the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' and the entire series. The Greek Pagan religion is still outlawed in Greece. More christian intolerance.

Hell was actually a norse/germanic pagan heaven. They did see Hell as being under the ground and the entrance to hell was through holes in the ground (especially wells) and it was a place of light and holy fire - although it wasn't ruled by a God but by a Goddess known as Hell, Hel, Ella, Holle - well you get the point different versions of her name. I don't mind going to Hell. :) Hell was originally the ruler of the three realms: the sky, the earth and the underground. Her name has been variously translated as meaning 'that which is hidden', 'holy' and 'all' (there is an etymological link with the two last meanings). Other words that share an etymological link with her name are our words health, heal and whole. Pretty neat place to go to huh?

By the way pericles. The 3 alternatives you say are a product of evangelical brainwashing, please tell me what other alternatives there are! Either jesus really thought he was God but was massively deluded, ie lunatic, or he knew he wasnt God, and so was telling the biggest whopper of all time, which would also make him very evil as he would be leading millions astray in their spritual search, or... he was telling the truth. In which case, he is God. Please tell us the other alternatives. By the way, I dont know if anyone noticed in the narnia film, the original debate in this thread, the professor used the same theory. He asked if lucy was known to lie, or if she was crazy, and when the children denied this, he concluded she must be telling the truth.

Genesis
In your last post you asked what other alternatives are there to "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" correct?
How about the following:

1) Jesus is a mythical person. The result of the addition of several different myths.

2) Jesus was a real historical person but the gospellers deliberately misreported what he said & did. In other words he never said he was god but the writers of the gospels wrote that he did.
After all Jesus wrote NOTHING! All we have are what other people say he said & did. And they were hardly unbiased writers. As the writer of John put it "This is written that you may believe". In other words they were NOT writing history but missionary tracts.

3) Jesus did claim to be the Christ & the Son of God but that these terms have been misunderstood. For example Judaism did NOT teach that the messiah would be God but merely a righteous king. That's why several people were referred to in the bible as the massiah eg Cyrus.
While the term "Son of God" in Judaism merely means someone who puts God's will before ANYTHING else.

4) Jesus did claim to be the messiah but [because in judaism the messiah was supposed to liberate Israel from its opressors & reign as king] & Jesus was killed then the writers had to find a reason for this or abandon belief in Jesus as the messiah. The gospells are the result. In this view they are still not history but the result of deep theological musings.

There you go Genesis there are 4 other possibilities. C. S. Lewis' argument fails. No doubt you find none of these other alternatives attractive. Might I suggest that's because you have al;ready made up your mind before you've examined the evidence. In other words, been brainwashed.

Edi, “There is evidence the four Gospels were circulating together by 120 AD.”

Genesis, “These guys wrote something that they were eyewitnesses to. It may have been 30 or so years later, but they were still eyewitnesses.”

Historians know when those texts where written. The writing style wasn't used before 75AD, most were written in the 2nd century in the style of the time. They weren't brought together until 650AD and were written in Greek not Hebrew, which was the language of the people. The texts were written by Greek scribes, thats fact.

When you take into account the glaring differences in what is written, you can see where truth lies

Mark's gospel names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the first early-morning tomb visitors. Matthew's gospel names only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in its Easter story-line. John's gospel states that it is Mary Magdalene alone who is present at Jesus' grave, while Luke's gospel covers all of the bases by stating that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, Joanna, and some "other women" were present and accounted for on Easter morn.

And what about all of the different Easter event announcers. We've got Mark's young boy dressed in white, Matthew's lightening laden, pure-as-snow angel of God. Luke's dazzlingly robed seraphs, and John's two heavenly messengers who somehow morph into Jesus himself.

How do you reconcile all of the wide-ranging descriptions and images of a de-entombed once dead man now alive again. Images like Mark's no-bodied Jesus who goes ahead of us into Galilee, or Matthew's apparitional Jesus who offers roadside greetings to those passing by.

Or John's soon-to-be-ascended don't-touch-me Jesus who appears among the lilies as a ghost-like gardener, or Luke's unrecognizable Jesus who walks and talks and wines and dines on the outskirts of Emmaus and then vanishes into thin air?

Good fiction has always sold well throughout the ages, each scribe was trying to out do others with the best version of the myth.

I must be slippng, I think I just mentioned some scripture

Pericles. Edi explained why copies of copies etc made over a short period of time are more reliable. We can double check the translator/copier got it right and over time whether there was any loss. A gap of 1000 years with no extant original puts a heavy weight on the translator. We have to hope what he copied from (we no longer have it) was a good translation and that he knew the language/historical context well. If he didn’t like or understand parts of say, the Iliad, we are none the wiser. The gap between the original and surviving text is 1000 years. That Homer wrote the Iliad as we have it now is not questioned.

The interior and exterior evidence supporting the Gospels dwarfs anything we have of any other ancient event and is treated with ruthless skepticism. This is mere prejudice.

Blessed replied elegantly to your query about slavery Azliz.

Paul was concerned about people misrepresenting Our Lord. Turning Christ into a Lenin, a revolutionary – “set all the slaves free - rebel against Rome!” Paul’s care was to prevent the hijacking of Christ’s message.

Aziliz I think you’ll make a great Christian apologist one day.

I’m sorry you felt fear reading the Bible, it was a Blessing you were released from it. Don’t take it literally, remember St Thomas said “everything that is received is received according to the manner of the recipient.”

Most aren’t terrorized reading the Bible as you were. The line from Leviticus you think God commands human sacrifice:

“Leviticus 27:28-29

The law mentioned in these two verses has been appealed to by the enemies of Divine revelation as a proof, that under the Mosaic dispensation human sacrifices were offered to God; but this can never be conceded. Had there been such a law, it certainly would have been more explicitly revealed, and not left in the compass of a few words only, where the meaning is very difficult to be ascertained; and the words themselves differently translated by most interpreters.”

‘Preparatio Evangelica’ explains the similarity of other religions to Christianity.

Patient Aziliz: There were a tremendous number of slaves in the nazi type Roman Empire.
This new emerging religion did not have the power or mandate to abolish it.
Had they caused an uprising there would have been a massacre and there would have been many well fed lions.
Then all the slain slaves would have been immediately replaced, without slavery the Empire would have collapsed many years sooner than it did.
If any slave ran away then when caught straight into the lions at the Colosseum.
Paul did teach the converted slave owners to treat their slaves like brothers/sisters.
Remember also that a Roman male was the head of the family and could with impunity kill any or all of his family as well as his slaves. Hope this helps, numbat

Bosk.
1. Jesus was a real historical person, and even most athiests will agree with that.

2. As I said in a previous post, the writers of the gospel all went to their deaths for saying jesus was God. SO I doubt they purposley misreported their story.

3. There are many verses in the bible that refer to jesus as the son of God, God, the annointed one, saviour, etc etc, a lot of them in parables, so theres definatley no misunderstanding about what he meant to say, and who he said he was.

4. The jews misunderstood the scriptures regarding the messiah, and so they had their own ideas of who and what the messiah should be, but theres verses and even whole chapters like Isaiah 53 that talks about him having no majesty, nothing to attract us to him, a man of sorrows, crushed for our sins, his punishment brought us peace, by his wounds we are healed, led like a lamb to the slaughter. Hardly the view the jews had of their messiah. And psalm 22 where his crucifixtion is prophesied, says they have pierced my hands and feet, evil men have surrounded me. He was the servant king, he was meant to die. So the writers didnt have to find a reason for this and make it up. It was all in the scriptures. Prophesy fulfilled.

So bang goes those extra 4 possibilities bosk. ANy more??

alchemist. If you witnessed a huge car accident from the side of the road, and 3 other people witnessed the same accident form different points around the place. Do you think your statement to the police would be exactly the same as all the others?? 4 different people, same story to tell in different ways. One might have seen something you didnt and vice versa. Or you might have arrived a little time before the others did, and so there would be an extra bit in your statement.

Genesis: On a different topic I did say and still maintain that at its roots religious belief is fuelled by fear of death (the promise of an afterlife), whereas atheists like me accept that we will cease to exist.
You say: "Those who refuse to beleive/acknowledge God, they too enter eternal blackness when they die. No big deal. But if theyre wrong, and God does exist, and theyve lived their life rejecting Him, they will die and enter eternal hell."
I ask: you espouse a faith that condemns to eternal hell a person who adheres to the best judgements that his conscience can offer? Your God will torture me forever because in good conscience I don't believe in him? Perhaps he would prefer me to be a hypocrite and go thru the motions? You are welcome to such a monster.

People don't want to discuss other religions *sigh*- such a lack of curiosity.

Martin-Blessed was being more poetic than elegant. Nothing to do with the passages I quoted.

Martin, you place a quote in your answer on the passage in Leviticus but don't say who you are quoting- it could be your local postman. The quote just says that anyone who questions the passage are enemies of Divine Revelation and also the passage isn't explicit. The original text is quite clear and saying that people who question it are enemies of Divine Revelation is in the real tradition of the Bible-making bullying threats instead of intelligent explanations.

The doctrine of 'Preparatio Evangelica' claims all other religions had small pieces of Christianity embedded in them by God and were only preparations for the coming of Christianity. Of course, the other religions didn't think so and it is insulting to them. It doesn't explain why Christianity had to persecute and suppress other religions either. Maybe Christianity is only a preparation for Islam. And maybe Islam's a preparation for Falun Gong.

Numbat-Your explanation for the advice of Paul about slavery is sensible and Martin gives a similar explanation but I'm not convinced. The early christians were fed to the lions, stoned, crucified, etc, because they stood up so strongly for their beliefs. Why die rather than bend the knee to an idol and not die rather than bend your knee to a cruel and abusive dictator or slave owner unless you think one important and the other not? The apostles weren't worried about their members being martyred-they greatly encouraged it.

Secondly, saying that Paul had to encourage the slaves to serve their masters, etc. because of the political climate of the time means that neither of you believe that these particular parts of the Bible hold timeless truths relevant for today. You could throw the whole Bible out the window on that premise if you chose-or large amounts of it. Its a dangerous stance to take if you want to claim that every word in the Bible is 'Divine Revelation' and 'Universal Truth'.

Martin thinks the bible should not be taken literally! If you don't take it literally then do you make it mean anything you want it to? This also shows a lack of belief in the Bible. Does this mean that Martin and Numbat don't believe the bible? Or not all of it? Or that at least part of it is not relevant to us today?

Slavery was still widespread and there were still a lot of people to offend when the USA abolished slavery. A lot of people put their lives on the line and habouring runaway slaves was against the law. The Bible explicitly instructs not to harbour runaway slaves-the slave owners felt fully justified on a Christian Biblical level.

The Christian group that was most involved in harbouring runaway slaves and petitioning for the Abolition of Slavery were the Quakers and they were pacifists, Martin, not Leninist revolutionaries. They're highly unorthodox christians who don't believe reading the Bible is as important as following the Holy Spirit within. They also hold to the Pelasgian Heresy that works are more important than faith. You would think that would make them dangerous-and yet they are pacifists and have been in forefront of doing good works in so many areas. An interesting version of Christianity.

Genesis, not sure if you are aware of this but mental illness is not an all or nothing thing.

The (lunatic) portion of the lunatic, liar or god argument seems to hang on the idea that a lunatic is a babbling nut who's lunacy will be really obvious in all area's of their live.

I'm no expert but I'm suprised that some of those who work with people with mental health issues have not jumped on that one.

Probably quite possible for someone to manage their life fairly well in most area's and be delusional about a small part of it. After a while some people might get annoyed by your delision and if they are not the caring sharing types some of them might want to toss you off a cliff or crucify you or something.

Simplistic arguments might be good for convincing those who want to believe but they don't do much for those who want better evidence. The "lunatic, liar or god" argument is one that is good for making believers feel better but that is about the limit of it.

R0bert

RObert,

What about the evidence of the resurrection? The hundreds of witnesses that were tortured and massacred for hanging on to what they saw.

Some of them lived long enough to write it down for future generations.

Lunatic, Liar, or Lord… one thing is sure he can't be ignored.

Genesis
How do I begin to answer you. I don't want to insult you but you really should learn about ancient history before you make any claims concerning an ancient document. I would argue that it is impossible to understand an ancient document without understanding the world it came from.

Firstly I don't have to support ANY of those arguments. Why? because the argument that C.S.Lewis used relied on the fact that there are only 3 possible alternative answers. I just pointed out 4 more off the top of my head. There could be 400 or 4000 more for all you know. So if lewis' argument relies on the fact that there are only 3 alternatives, & there are more alternatives possible then that means the argument [known in philosophy as "abduction"] doesn't work. It is INVALID!

If you are going to use a philosopher's work try a decent christian philosopher like Thomas Aquinas not some 3rd rater like Lewis. Now let's get to your answers:
To be continued...

Continued from previous post.

1. I actually agree with you that Jesus was a historical figure [see my first post], but there is very little evidence for his existence. see http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
This being so it is a definate possibility that jesus didn't exist. By the way the ONLY thing that matters is EVIDENCE. Not opinion. The majority of people at one time believed that the sun went round the Earth. Their opinion didn't make it so.

2. . We have NO idea what happened to the Apostles except through tradition. Now according to tradition John blessed a cup of poison & by doing so turned the poison into a snake. When John realised that he was going to die [also according to tradition] He laid down in a hole in the shape of a crusifix & disappeared in a flash of light. Conclusion: I think we can state that tradition might be mistaken sometimes. :)

3. I found this reply strange. I think you misunderstood me.
a) The term "son of god" = someone who puts god's will before anything. There were many Jews before & after Jesus who were referred to as "son of god".
b) Messiah = someone who has been annointed by God. Cyrus the king of Persia was referred to as a Messiah as well as others.

4. Finally you can only approach an ancient document by looking at it through the eyes of the people from that era. The Gospels were NOT written for 21st century Australians. They were written for 1st century jews. Understand their world to understand the gospels.

One final point. How reliable are the gospels? Consider this.
If i told you that I have a book that says that Ned Kelly was a saint & this book was written by Dan Kelly, Joe Burne & Steve Hart. You'd reply "but those are members of the Kelly gang. What about the police reports, the trial records, the newspaper accounts?" The gospels are accounts written by the jesus gang. They are pushing a particular point of view NOT writting history.

Slavery...

There are several instances of slavery mentioned in the New Testament. Most refer to slaves being content in their situation, and doing what is right for their masters (1 Corinthians 7:21; Colossians 3:22; Ephesians 6:5-8; 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9). There are other mentions made to 'masters' about the right way to treat their slaves (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). Nowhere is slavery condoned as such, but also there is no suggestion of uprising against masters. The focus is on how to show Christian principles in your life no matter what situation you are in.

The social conditions of the day were such that people could choose to become slaves as an option to paying debt. It was not necessarily the same as 'slavery' as we know it today. On the contrary, it has been compared to workers in general in today's society ('workers treat your boss with respect'... 'Boss, treat your workers with compassion').

But of course there have been (and still are) many instances of 'Christians' condoning slavery. But that doesn't make it right. And any Christian who uses the NT as a backing for slavery does not understand the gospel message.

Once again, this is just history showing how many things are done in the name of Christ, but does not mean they are of Christ...

:-)

Bosk

"Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!"

This link is very good reading on the matter Bosk.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Jesus truly is the Son of God, He has always existed and he rose from death.

The Resurrection of the body is real. No one else said or did anything like Jesus. So Christianity is uniquely right or wrong.

Simon Greenleafs 'Testimony of the Apostles' is a good half a page sum up of why the apostles could not have lied.

Genesis, “1. Jesus was a real historical person, and even most athiests will agree with that.”

Historical, yes. But so is father xmas, goldilocks, and the easter bunny.

“2. As I said in a previous post, the writers of the gospel all went to their deaths for saying jesus was God. SO I doubt they purposely misreported their story.”

So they wrote their death accounts from the grave, typical religious reasoning.

“alchemist If you witnessed a huge car accident from the side of the road, and 3 other people witnessed the same accident form different points around the place.”

What a pathetic analogy, I think you should actually read your bible, instead of being ridiculous. Then explain the huge and glaring differences in numbers, as well as locations, actions and words. How can you have one account saying there was one person present, then others saying there were many more.

How can John be factual if there was only Mary there. If that was the case, then his account is secondhand and not factual. Plus all their accounts are second hand, not personally witnessed as none of them were there, just women.

Add to that, none of them could read nor write Hebrew, let alone Greek and you have typical religious fact. As apologists, you fail miserably. But thats religion, a miserable failure.

Martin, we have been down this path before. Simon Greenleaf starts his "testimony" from the standpoint of a believer, and cannot be regarded as impartial in his analysis.

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

The text is riddled with similar assumptions that override objections from anyone looking for even-handedness with the evidence.

He makes for example the automatic assumption that Matthew was himself the author of his gospel, despite this being itself in doubt.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0196.asp

Greenleaf blithely states:

"He is generally allowed to have written first, of all the evangelists; but whether in the Hebrew or the Greek language, or in both, the learned are not agreed, nor is it material to our purpose to inquire; the genuineness of our present Greek gospel being sustained by satisfactory evidence."

On the date, he is equally convinced:

"The precise time when he wrote is also uncertain... varying from A.D. 37 to A.D. 64. The earlier date, however, is argued with greater force, from the improbability that the Christians would be left for several years without a general and authentic history of our Savior's ministry"

This simultaneous acceptance of the fact in dispute, and of a wild assumption of an "improbable", is what Greenleaf considers to be evidence.

The pattern is clear: first assume you know, then massage the "evidence" to fit.

As for your "four witnesses", they each saw (or heard about) something different. That wouldn't convict your man of theft, for sure.

This particular form of argumentation is of great comfort to those who believe, but of absolutely no value to anyone who doesn't. The very fact that it is regularly wheeled out as "evidence" adds fuel to their cause - as in, "is this the best you can do?"

Gnome. Where do you do your research?

Slavery in Rome was complex. It is estimated that 40% of the people were slaves. The majority of these were prisoners of war and the majority of these worked doing manual labour on farms, in mines, manning roman galleys, etc. Their lives were miserable and their treatment was generally cruel.

At the other extreme there were slaves who were doctors, teachers, administrators and craftsmen who were treated far better and in between the two groups the household slaves were better off than lower slaves.

In the end it was up to the master how a slave was treated. He could beat them, torture them, rape them and kill them if he chose. Suicide among slaves was high. If a slave killed his master then not only was the slave killed but also any other slave suspected of not rushing to his masters aid.

Not only did the owners own them they also owned their children (slaves were not allowed to marry so technically did not have wives).

Manumission - the freeing of a slave was at the slave owners discretion. He could get a lifetime of cooperative work from a slave by dangling the offer of freedom in front of him. Slaves were often freed but often only after years of service and even then did not have the same rights as full citizens and still had some ties to his master who could change his mind and make him a slave again if he wanted. When the slave died all his property was inherited by his previous master.

It was a Roman Law that if you could not pay your debt then you became the slave of the debtor and if you owed money to more than one person then you would be sliced into pieces and the pieces given to the debtors as payment - just a grisly form of capital punishment- hardly 'voluntary'. As the small independent farmers were unable to survive due to the low price of their commodities and the unpredictability of the crop they often wound up

firstly in debt and then slaves. Rome didn't care about their plight they just became more dependent on importing food.

There were rebellions of slaves, the most famous being of Spartacus 73-71BC a gladiator that escaped with 200 other members from a gladiator school. He travelled the countryside freeing slaves and many slaves ran away to join him. The estimates of the force he raised was 40,000 to 70,000. They managed to win a few battles against the Roman Legions sent to put down the rebellion but eventually lost and six thousand that were not killed in battle were crucified - the crosses lined the side of the Appian Way a main road into Rome for all to see.

And the Bible:
1 Peter 18
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
19 For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace.
20 But what credit is there if you are patient when beaten for doing wrong? But if you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, this is a grace before God.

While Timothy 6:1-2 actually encourage slaves to be extra good to their Christian Masters. That is encouraging christians to keep slaves. And Christians did keep slaves and continued to keep slaves for over a millenia.

If people want to debate can they please research the subject before they speak? it isn't hard to type the subject into google and read a few sites (although the web has a lot of misinformation on it at least that would be a start) and I had previous posts on this subject with all the NT passages involved (more than you supplied Gnome) - could you go back and read them? Otherwise you are wasting my time by making me repeat myself and to supply research to you that you could do yourself.

Aziliz,

For an easy to understand summary of how to read the Bible. You can't go past Dei Verbum. A document produced after many years of discussion and research by eminent theologians from many denominations at the second Vatican council.

If you read 'Dei Verbum' your questions of interpretation of the Bible will be satisfied.

I hope you'll read this before you post again questions of that nature.

Regards,

MIW

Anyone see compass on tv last night? About CS lewis? Interesting. By the way bosk, my original post said the exact same thing. Its evidence and not opinion that matters. Exactly! But....

1 corinthians 1:18 -- "for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing"

Genesis:

No answers to my questions? A bit hard, maybe?

mhoram..no, not too hard. Too long maybe. I put that verse in cos no matter what I say, and spend a lot of time on here writing, you will still think it foolish, just as I did when I was perishing. But did I believe I was perishing? of course not. I didnt agree with a lot of things in the bible, but I didnt understand the whole theme of the bible. It was foolishness.
God created us eternal beings, to worship him and love him. If he jsut let everyone into heaven, just cos theyve followed their best judgements, heaven would be just like here. But who do you compare yourself to when you judge yourself and say you followed your best judgements. Not Gods standards. and if god was a monster, youd more than likely be dead now, in hell, but he wants all to realise who he his before its too late. None are without excuse. And if you go through life rejecting the one who gave you life, then he has EVERY right to send you to hell. Hell is just a place where God is not. And if all goodness in the world comes from God, then therell be none of that goodness in hell. No such thing as love, joy, friends, family.
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son so that all who beleive will not perish but have eternal life.....cont

.......Tell me, have you every told a lie? even a little one? If yes, then that makes you a liar. Have you ever stolen anything? Even a pen, or diddled your taxes? Yes? Then that makes you a thief. Ever lusted after anyone. Of course. The that makes you an adulterer at heart. If you answered yes to any of these q's, then youre a lying theiving adulterer at heart. ANd thats what God sees. SO you can do all you want using your best judgemnent, but it aint gods standards. And in good conscience you dont beleive in him? You have no excuse. Evidence for his existence is everywhere. While youre still alive on this earth, God is blessing you and giving you a chance to turn to him. If he was a monster. You'd be in hell already

Genesis
Quote "Tell me, have you every told a lie? even a little one? If yes, then that makes you a liar" I agree. And we can't trust liars because anything they tell us might just be another one of their lies.
But hold on a minute. If everyone who tells any untruth is a liar that means that everyone is a liar correct? After all EVERYONE has told untruths at sometime in their life. If everyone is a liar that means you & the authors of the bible are also liars. So why should we trust anything you or the bible says? It was written by liars. It must have been because everyone is a liar...that includes the authors of the bible.
Ah but that's different you say. The authors of the bible were inspired by God. Why should we trust you when you tell us that? yAccording to your argument you're just a liar. And how do we know that the bible is inspired? Because the liars who wrote it tell us so? But they are liars! You said so yourself. EVERYONE lies. Unless you were lying about that :)

Pericles, that article was terrible. It had all the worst aspects of modern biblical criticism, and its attendant presuppositions.

http://ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm is part of Mark Goodacre's case against Q - the postulated source of quotes used by Matthew and Luke to write their Gospels.

There is no good reason for doubting Matthew wrote his Gospel :) despite what liberal Catholics say.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html#anon

The teaching arm of the Church praises the historico-critical method but does not endorse all its conlusions, it is happy keeping the traditional beliefs about the Gospels - there is as yet no good reason to change. This is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

It is a tribute to Catholic openness that a magazine publishes different ideas about Our sacred text. If I were you I wouldn't rush to embrace them though :)

If you were to ask four people to write biographies of Lincoln you would get four different biographies – essence the same however. Those closest to him would have most cause to write because he was a great man, and they saw him up close.

For any event of the ancient near east you will not find better evidence, its as simple as that. Ancient history is a rich area of inquiry, but if you banish the Gospels you must be consistent and banish all ancient history if you're consistent in your skepticism.

Doubt your doubts Pericles.

Martin, you have a wicked sense of humour.

>>For an easy to understand summary of how to read the Bible. You can't go past Dei Verbum.<<

Five thousand words, prepared by a committee. That's really going to help.

Here's a sample.

"This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them."

I'm sure it sounds better in Latin.

Please advise us, Martin, exactly which part of Dei Verbum provides “an easy to understand summary of how to read the Bible”?

Otherwise I shall be forced to assume you simply want to divert attention from your inability to discuss cogently with Aziliz by changing the subject.

Genesis

You want me to accept "God's standards". Where do I find these, pray tell? The Bible (Catholic or Protestant)? The Holy Koran (Shia or Sunni)? The Torah? The Buddhist scriptures (Mahayana or Hinayana?), Taoist or Confucian writings? All these - plus numberless tribal shamans - claim to have The Truth. Unfortunately the Truth differs from one to the other: they can't all be right but you can't show which one is, you can only accept one blindly, on faith. All, as Bosk so logically and mercilessly points out, are the works of people: people like you and I (ie, occasional liars, thieves, lusters-after-sexually-desirable others, etc). The noted scientist Sir Fred Hoyle once put these words into the mouth of a character in one of his Sci-Fi novels:

"Aye, there is no shortage of men who are privy to the word of God. So they say themselves. But I have never heard anything from this God myself, only from the men who say they are privy to his word."

Not to be insulting, Genesis, but you are just one more such. Trot out your God and bring him to my place one day - he's omniscient, so he'll have the address - I'll give him a hearing then, O yes precious, certainly I will.

Martin, you ask me to “doubt my doubts”. I do that all the time, and intend to continue to do so.

It is evident from your posts here that you do not take your own advice. You are highly selective in the scholarship that you are prepared to accept and reject, witness my reference to a piece from an overtly evangelical site that clearly didn't meet with your approval...

>>It had all the worst aspects of modern biblical criticism, and its attendant presuppositions <<

Do you ever listen to yourself? Doesn't it occur to you that people who don't share your views can – and do - substitute “Christian fundamentalism” or “rabid single-minded Christian evangelism” for the “modern biblical criticism” that you complain about?

Particularly the bit about the attendant presuppositions.

>>There is no good reason for doubting Matthew wrote his Gospel despite what liberal Catholics say <<

Ooops, there you go again. There are plenty of reasons to doubt it, as many scholars have argued, and will argue, for years. Only people who arrogantly assume they are in possession of the uniquely “right” answer will reject any and every argument, in favour of blindly retaining their belief.

>>For any event of the ancient near east you will not find better evidence, its as simple as that <<

If we were talking here purely about an historical event, or series of events, then there would be no issue. But we are talking about the birth of a spiritual movement that has had a major impact on world affairs for centuries. The fact that these works were put together, not as a purely historical record but as a basis for putting ones faith in one particular deity and its concomitant religious strictures, had a major influence on what was written.

Livy was an historian, so were Herodotus and Thucydides. The four gospels were religious tracts. There is a difference.

The entire edifice of your belief system rests on these books, so you are obliged to defend them as historical records, I understand that. But I don't suffer from the same limitation.

Dei verbum– presented by Pope Paul VI November 18, 1965

Blah– yes Pericles a document dedicated to obfuscation rather than enlightenment.

Martin, I think you are referring to (12) which instructs to read the scriptures:

with regard to the style of the times
with regards to the unity of the whole of scripture
and taking into account that "texts are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse"

Saying that parts of the Bible are 'poetic' would certainly mean that they aren't to be taken literally as you suggested, but poetry would be something like "The Song of Solomon" (which has been controversial enough over the ages) and not the simple instructions on slavery that are repeated seven times within the NT - how on earth could they be interpreted as 'poetry'?

If the instruction to see things ‘in context of the times’ means, as you suggest, that part of the rules, laws and instructions on how to behave is irrelevant to today there is no point having a Bible – at very least it is an admission that it is not ‘eternal truth’.

Anyone who attempted to take the Bible as a unity would just self-combust– there is far too much contradiction to make that possible.

But the crunch is, Dei Verbum states:

"The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

I think you stretch the interpretation of Dei Verbum if you think it means it is okay not to take parts of the Bible (of your choice) literally and decide parts (once again of your choice) aren’t relevant to today.

Even so, the main thrust of the Dei Verbum is “We are right because God says so and we have tradition behind us and we keep the right to say what the Bible means not you”.

I have tried really hard to find out who Matthew was and all the sources I can come up with say that noone knows. Unless someone can show me a reliable source that explains who he is-I really wouldn't waste your breath arguing over whether he wrote the Gospel or not.

There was an earlier post stating that the NT is written by eyewitnesses- I would like to know who they were. Paul was not an eyewitness by his own admission. Matthew as I have said is an unknown. Luke was supposed to be a friend of Paul's so unless someone can point me to something claiming he had contact with Jesus I assume he may be in the same boat as Paul, while Mark is unknown except for one reference from Papius in 130AD who said he was a interpreter of Peter - hardly definitive.

The Gospel of John is claimed to be written by an eyewitness but the date of the 90's AD is attributed to it because it mentions the expulsion of the Jewish Christians from synagogue life which didn't happen until the late 80's. This is the earliest that John could have been written- not the latest. This gospel is written in the best Greek and interwoven with Greek concepts like the 'logos'. One eye witness? And he didn't write anything until till 60 years+ after the death of Christ? A lot of scholars think it a fake. So far - I haven't researched every person in the NT but these are the main ones.

I also object to the pride that is shown in the amount of written evidence to support mainstream christian beliefs compared to other sources. Mainstream christianity burned rival books and manuscripts -and outlawed them. That is why there are more survivals of mainstream than there is of others. There are no survivals of first century christian manuscripts though. The dates ascribed to the Gospels etc are from a critical analysis of the manuscripts that date from the second and third century.

Aziliz you can't find witnesses, there aren't any. Not one of the books of the bible were written by those ascribed to them, they couldn't write Greek. If you look deeply into the original writings you will note many notations made by the scribes who did the actual writings. These notations have been ignored by the church and lots of them removed. There are copies of the originals in the Vatican and within the Russian orthodox churches, particularly in St Petersburg.

On at least 4 of these parchments, the scribes, (all different people and written at different times and different places), explain that they are recording verbal fictional stories that were becoming popular amongst the population and needed recording for wider use.

At the time, they had no names attributed to them, were copied so they could be sent to other parts of the empire for the amusement of the ruling class. Christianity arose from this, just as star trekies have and was seized upon by some as a new way to control the populance and disrupt the roman empire.

Around 650 they were correlated and only a hand full kept. Many things were changed to align it with the growing Christian power base. There were more than 4500 documents that made up these works as well as other stories aligned to them, Just like popular fiction they produced clones or similar works.

The original story was built around a wacky group that heavily indulged in the use of hemp products, and bathed themselves in holy anointing oil made up of hemp oil and olive oil. The recipe is in genesis, which is where they got the idea of a messiah.

The group, was thrown out of the area, the leader arrested and hung up, bribes allowed taking him down quickly and his wounds treated. He and his women, fled to India where he earlier spent time during his late teens and twenties after being banished for heresy and causing trouble. You can find these accounts in Kashmir as well as other evidence of this, throughout the world.

The Alchemist,

I think we are talking about a different movie here. The one where the hero goes to his death to save civilization (even you).

Christianity is based on FACTS.

If those facts are not to your liking, than too bad. Go and continue to make your own facts and impress your friends with your intellectual wit.

The distortions, scriptural clones and concoctions – even if you were true – will not change the FACTS.

A good example is the current cartoons saga. Many different reports but that doesn’t negate the fact that there were cartoons, they were published, the muslims got upset, etc… this is how history is recorded. The stories are gathered, pictures are taken, reporters comment, editors edit, voila.

History revisionism is were you and your mob come in. Christ was fiction, Mohammed never existed, what holocaust? Stolen generation…get out of here!

Your conclusion: It's all that hemp and rubbing olive oil - get rid of religion and she’ll be write…!

Listen to yourself. You’re just using space on OLO.

But we love you for it. Cheers.

It's a total waste of time trying to convince religious people by the use of facts and logic.
Their's is a BELIEF system, it doesn't require facts and logic!
And for me, it's OK, let them carry on in their beliefs, if it makes them feel good and comforted. If it also helps them to be better human beings, so well and good.
Just don't try to impose them on me! I don't need to blindly believe in a religion to be a good person. I also don't take kindly to threats of eternal damnation. This is not the way to get me on side.
Look at all the trouble being caused around the world as we speak by religious people defending their stupid belief systems.
All religions (and perhaps most ideologies) are as bad as one another.

Some people beleive only what they want to beleive, unfortunatley. Mhoram, and some of the others, simply dont want to beleive what is evident everywhere. SO I will say it again.....

1 corinthians 1:18 -- "for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing"
I know itd be much simpler for you to beleive what you do (or dont, for that matter) believe, if all us christians were fooled into this faith, brainwashed, accepting it blindly on faith, whatever you want to call it. But I think you'll find most of us actually stepped outside of our opinions for a while, and open mindedly did some research, dug up the evidence. Which I certainly did before I accepted this as truth. And now I see God working in my life, amazing answers to prayers and so on.

mhoram.."Trot out your God and bring him to my place one day - he's omniscient, so he'll have the address - I'll give him a hearing then, O yes precious, certainly I will". ..Hee hee, how often have I heard this. Heres a verse for ya...luke 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

Well Genesis, please list this "evidence" as you call it, and see whether we agree that it is in fact evidence.
No good quoting scripture at us, that just doesn't cut it.
It is NOT evidence.
Why do you persist in trying to ram your nonsensical beliefs down people's throats?
Isn't it enough that YOU believe it?
Just get on with your life, try to follow your religion as best you can, but don't try to impose it on other people who have "been there, done that" and woken up to what a load of baloney it all is.
The problem with you religious people is that you can't tolerate anyone that thinks for themselves, and that leads to totalitarianism, not to mention all sorts of atrocities, as we see with the Muslim extremists and their fellow travelers.

Froggie et al,

An intelligent person seeking truth would certainly read and consider a book that has the historical qualifications of : the bible; UNIQUE qualifications that set the Scriptures apart from other book ever written.

Do your research and stop wasting our time for your quick instant fixes. Get the facts, know the consequences, than decide. Don’t rely on other people's misconceptions.

We certainly don't want to ram the truth into you - our mission is to tell (not sell).

More people abandoned Jesus' teachings than accepted it. Even Him - the greatest man that ever lived - could not convince everyone. You’re in the majority pal.

Christianity is not for the faint hearted, if you want a feel-good-hug-the-next-person religion join such a cult; christianity is definitely not a spectators sport either, it requires toughness and discipline.

And if any other christian on OLO tries to coerce you in anyway please let me know.

Christianity is not what we do or not do – it is who we are ‘in Christ’ – it is a coat we wear with pride, having been saved from eternal death, we have freedom, hope and real joy. (not guilt and fear like you think)

Froggie, the problem people like coach and co face, is that they are fighting their brothers in god. Their religion has exactly the same god as those they hate. That shows you how really bent and dangerous they are.

These people, are those that only sit in the pews, then rant about how brilliant they are. They have never studied at seminaries, traveled the world studying ancient script, been ordained, or are even widely read these subjects.

You will note that they attribute their knowledge to their minds, never put forth fact, never justify nor provide evidence of what they say, except by quoting passages from a version of a book that was rewritten in the last 100 years to suit their needs. (read USA evangelistic money making)

Yet they abuse and try to ridicule those that have spent a great deal of their lives traveling and studying this subject in depth, from all angles and perspectives to try and understand it properly, not just from the back of the pews. With all the evidence they are provided with, all they can do is jump out of their revolving door, go metronome click clack and then jump back in, hoping no one will realise how stupid their statements are.

Note the venom when I mentioned the holy anointing oil, yet they lack the intellect to read the works that they blindly follow, to see that I actually speak the truth.

If it were true, these are the type of people that would kill their jesus as soon as he opened his mouth, because they wouldn't recognise him and would reject anything he said. Because he would denounce their grubby material ways of life, as he did in the past, according to the story.

So no wonder he wouldn't come back. Would you, knowing what was waiting for you, violent despotic ignorant warmongers, who denounce everyone and everything that won't accept their fallacies and care nothing for their gods other forms of life, except to gorge themselves at other life forms expense.

Coach.

"History revisionism is were you and your mob come in. Christ was fiction, Mohammed never existed, what holocaust? Stolen generation…get out of here! "

That’s real funny, cos I always thought that "what holocaust? Stolen generation?" was the province of those certain of Jesus and the moh's existence.

Anyhoo, there are a number of interesting articles in this weeks new scientist on religion as an evolutionary advantage (red rag to a bull I know). It seems the release of endorphins associated with repetitive movements characteristic of religious observances (swaying, chanting, flagellation and yes, even kneeling), is amplified relative to the size of the group in which they occur. So when 'three or more gather in my name, I am there' should read 'you will get higher in a larger group. The simultaneous experience is of evolutionary advantage because a coherent social structure is more conducive to human reproduction and successful rising of offspring than a lack of society.

Marx was essentially although coincidentally correct, however he got the drug wrong, religion is not the opium but the naturally produced endorphins of the masses. One can only imagine how high you would be at hillsong or a Shiite flagellation.

Pity people had to go and institutionalise it.

Incidentally, the production of endorphins during religious observances and their amplification as a result of shared experience are observed under controlled and repeated conditions, not that the principal of truth of evidence will be of any interest.

Ha-ha. When I previewed this I misspelt Shiite and was told to remove the profanity.

coach & genesis
I can understand your reluctance to even consider the arguments against your faith. After all what are the alternatives?

Could God have made a mistake? Unthinkable!

Could the bible [authored by God] be mistaken? Impossible!

But there is another alternative. That coach & genesis are wrong in their interpretation.

Consider this. Is it even conceivable that you could both be wrong? That your interpretation of the bible & its passages could be mistaken? That you shouldn't even be Christian Fundamentalists or Evangelicals? Or are you both committed to the idea that you are both infallible? If you accept the idea that you are both human & therefore could be wrong then perhaps you should consider any evidence against your beliefs.

Remember any counter argument just means that your fundamentalist or evangelical interpretation is wrong! Not necessarily that God is wrong. So perhaps you shouldn't just dismiss arguments you don't like because they are against YOUR interpretations of the bible.
Or is the God that you truely worship named EGO & not Jesus at all.
Just a thought

hee hee. tut tut. It seems those of you who are not beleivers dont actually read any of the posts properly of those of us who are. You only read and see what you want. Bosk...okay, if thats what you want to think. Sure. I could be wrong. I believe I am right. As much as youd like to think I took this path cos someone blindly led me, then thats okay. You see, you have never been on the side Im on right now. I, however, have been on the side youre on. I too was once an ubeleiver. BUt I was the one that opened my mind. Discovered the truth. And want to share it with those that dont know. Not cos I want to ram it down their throats, but because I actually care!! Shocking I know. You really dont know what youre missing. This conversation is going around in circles.

its not being easy....thanks for that giggle. :o)

Genesis
Quote "you see, you have never been on the side Im on right now." Actually Genesis I was a fundamentalist christian. I accepted Jesus as my Lord & Saviour, was washed in the blood, prayed the sinners prayer, accepted I was a sinner saved by grace & whatever other euphamism you want to use. But I found that quite a number of those same fundamentalist authors were totally wrong. Not by reading some anti-christian expert but by reading primary sources. That's old documents to you. But then most fundamentalists don't know because ALL they ever read are authors who believe the same things they do.

You also say when you found the truth you changed. I presume you mean when you examined the facts. Did those facts include a study of Ancient & Classical history of the Middle East? From many authors both fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal & secular? I did that sort of study. That's why I ended up leaving. I don't think you did though. I think you read works by Josh MacDowell or Lee Strobel, decided they can't be wrong & changed. But then you were probably born into an evangelical or fundamentalist family to begin with. Am OI right?
I know your world VERY well. If you are really so concerned with TRUTH then you NEVER reach the point when you can say "I've found ABSOLUTE TRUTH now I don't need to search any further".
Why can't you say that? Because you are still human & could still be wrong. Evidence might still come to light which convinces you that you're wrong. So you keep searching. Here's one last chance to read the other side. If you truely are concerned with the search for the truth that is.
http://blondguys.net/members/articles/edoherty/review-1.htm

Genesis, you are right about one thing, the discussion is definitely getting rotund and maybe pointless. Wd U agree that at the end of the day one becomes a believer (in whatever brand of religion U choose) as an act of faith, not of rationality? I have friends who are sincere believers who agree with this. I respect them and their right to believe, as they respect my scientific rationalist outlook. Go your way in peace. I ask nothing more than that you and those like you do not seek to impose your views and values on me or others. I will not try to make you share mine. Surely if history has taught us anything it's the futility of trying to force belief or unbelief, or compliance with other people's values, on anyone thru the power of church and/or state (eg, Catholic Church and heliocentric astronomy, USSR and Marxist-derived atheism).

Thanks Bosk-very interesting link. I was particularly interested in the section about Papius.

Apart from the argument whether Jesus existed or not, Earl Doherty does highlight whether parts of the NT were referring to a 'spiritual' rather than a 'corporeal' resurrection of Jesus.
I think that it is relevant to compare this 'spiritual' resurrection with NDEs (Near Death Experiences) and ADCs (After Death Communications) which are well documented if not well understood.

Whether you believe these experiences are 'spiritual' or 'hallucinatory' the fact is many people believe it has happened to them.

There are some scientific studies being conducted into them but research on them is in its infancy.

Here's a link about some of the scientific research:

http://iands.org/research/vanLommel/vanLommel2.php

I'm not saying that this fits in perfectly with the teachings of the NT but there are many similarities.

The differences is that only Christ came back. Whereas with NDE and ADC many come back-it is nothing special that only a man/god could achieve.

Also if NDE is the explanation then the fact that Christ comes back in the flesh would mean he was actually corporeally alive like any NDEer and be living on the earth as a normal human being after the crucifixion. If you explain it as an ADC then he could not have come back in the flesh but only as a 'spirit'.

The knowledge and belief in NDE and ADC appears to be part of the makeup of many religions.

In a time that put emphasis on spiritual experiences where people would not just be told they were a nutter for having one it would have been widely known.

The insistence that only christ or people alive at the time of his crucifixion had this experience would actually supress others from talking about it for fear of being called blasphemous-or at least to be very careful to make it their explanation of it fit withing Church Doctrine.

Pericles, of course I know what scholars say about the Gospels. Remember I directed you to Mark Goodacre as an example of where scholars disagree, and used one example - the hypothetical Q document upon which rests a large portion of the edifice of modern biblical criticism. My advice was to not follow the latest fads that’s all.

I follow the Church’s teaching which has a lot to lose by following fashions, academics potentially a lot to gain.

Saying the Gospels are religious tracts and not historical records is begging the question. We are discussing whether what is written in the Gospels actually happened. You can’t argue that point while at the same time assume what we are trying to find out.

My understanding of a merely ‘religious tract’ is something like the Buddhist Gitas. But Christianity is an historical religion, its claims are grounded in history.

To understand the kind of claim you are making about the Gospels being ahistorical read ‘The impossible faith’

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

So you can see if one was looking to invent a religion - Christianity would be the last thing someone would choose. No one could calculate Christianity into existence, its just not plausible. The much more parsimonious explanation is that it is true, that is the early Christians had the experiences they describe.

Its funny, after I became a Christian I realized that I’d just put myself in the same boat as most Westerners to have ever lived, I was now in the company of great geniuses and saints over the centuries, and that I left what was in fact a very radical, experimental and fashionable set of ideas. Paraphrasing GK Chesterton’s description of his conversion “it was like sailing out on a great journey and arriving at a far away land planting your flag and then realizing you had returned home.”

I respect your genuineness Pericles, and I don’t pretend to want to rob you of your journey if that is what you want. But don’t forget there are two ways of getting home, one is to never leave.

The problem of claiming tradition behind you, Martin, is that it is an illusory concept.

Individual christians have very different ideas of who christ was and what the bible means- as you admit yourself- you do not take the bible literally and do not think it all relevant for today.

If Christians can pick and choose what they believe and how they believe then you get radically different views from different Christians and that is certainly my experience talking to christians.

Beyond that, every moment a new sect or tradition starts. Something that has been happening since before Christianity came on the scene. I have read a lot about early christian sects and many of the writings that didn't make it into the bible and it is obvious that there were as many proliferations of Christian sects back then with very different beliefs as there is today even more so. Even if you read the early Church Fathers you recognise that they believed a very different christianity to the ones taught in churches today. Hitler had just as much church tradition behind him as you do. He was just one more crusader/inquisitioner who truly believed he was doing God's work.

If you add to that all the people who were converted by the sword or by punishments or bribery - which was no small amount, many of the ancestors of Christians today, then it negates the achievement of the Christian church. If you become a christian because you are afraid of being tortured or killed or thrown into prison or because you want a job or a promotion or to avoid tax then you never became a christian at all.

If a dictatorship adopts christianity as its religion you have to ask what was in it for them? And I would say that the fact that the NT continually exhorts christians to tow the line, work hard and do what they are told even if under a cruel tyrant and even if they are enslaved to a cruel master then I think you have a pretty neat answer there.

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity at a time when it was creaking at the seams with rebellion. When the gap between the rich and poor had become immense. The Roman Empire's success was built on slave labour but as it grew so did the oppression of the underclasses.

The fact that Christianity has inspired christians to persecute others on such a massive scale has to be addressed.

It is interesting that Islam has adopted so many of Christianity's ideas. They are both evangelical and they both believe that anyone who is not a member of their faith will go to hell. They also both believe in the apocolypse. Some Islamic countries still use some of the methods christianity used to convert people, by taxing non-moslems, not allowing them to build their churches/temples, and allowing open villification of other religions (they also have the death penalty for any moslem who converts away from Islam). But Chrisitanity was the first to use these methods and a whole range of more oppressive ones. Islam is just Christianity's child.

Aziliz: What a lot of tosh in your last, why do moslems try to latch onto Christianity they, moslems, came years later. The Old Testament has over 300 prophecies regarding the coming Messiah ALL! fulfilled, then along came brutal, pedophilc, robbing, lying mohamad and wrote his garbage. he used the Bible true but he never read it, he couldn't read. He got his stories second hand that's why its so different from the Bible. The koran is so mixed up regards personages from the Old Testament.The koran is a pack of incredibly silly lies and mis-truths. I see this miserable book as a hand book for terrorists only.
As for islam a child of Christianity NO! way Hosea. islam is a bastard child it is not - never has been - never will be - never could be a child of Christianity. numbat

Numbat regarding your response to Aziliz.
Now, there's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, if ever there was one!
There is no real evidence for your beliefs. The Bible and the Koran are books with some wise sayings in them, some ridiculous statements in them, supernatural stories and myths, and both are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.
The sooner mankind grows up and stops believing in the tooth fairy, the wicked witch, Santa Claus, Jesus, Mohamed et al... the better.
However, if you can't think rationally for yourself, and need a comforter, go right ahead. Just stop trying to impose this rubbish on others.

its not easy being - calming neurochemicals are released when a person prays - fantastic! You wouldn't want it to be painful. Mother and child's brain chemistry is altered during breast feeding - fantastic we'd want pleasure to be part of that experience!

But what about the content? Is the child at the breast interchangeable? Does praying to a God of love who answers the same as pretending to pray?

You can't reduce the experience to chemicals, thats called explaining away. i can do the same to your beliefs "you just believe atheism because it produces a pleasurable brain state"

Does the pleasure a sadist receives from inflicting pain a tick for or against sadism?

We'd expect a being created by God to worship Him who is all good and all majesty to find it desirable.

I don't understand why non Christians revert to name calling when the truth is so much more interesting.

Look guys don't you realise Christianity is your heritage, our ancestors bequeathed all this good stuff for us. You're not outside, you're inside you own it. Its for all of us.

God loves us, don't listen to the lies whispered to you about God. We believe there is an evil spirit actively trying to prevent people from being close to God. And that evil spirit is much smarter than all of us.

Belief only springs from doubt, doubt is healthy but what I'm reading isn't doubt but bloody mindedness.

Don't be afraid.

The only thing I'm afraid of, Martin, is fundamentalist religionists who seem bent on reducing the planet to a charred ruin, in the hope of imposing their beliefs on another part of mankind.
It's all about power and control over the people.
Believe what you like, but just stop trying to impose it on others.
After all, if the ideas are all that attractive, people will come over to your way of thinking with no effort at all.
Also, forget trying "the devil will get you" bogeyman and "eternal damnation" threats. They don't wash with me.

Numbat & Martin,

Its amazing how hostile you are to Islam, who as a religion, honours Jesus as a prophet, his miracle birth and second coming.
Yet you associate yourselves with a faith that totally rejects you and their yet to come messiah is your anti-christ.
I will never understand your mob.

fellow_human: As I said previously islam is clawing at things Christian. Islamics see Jesus as a prophet when Christians see Jesus as the Son of God, that God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, returning to judge the earth thus all its inhabitants be they Christian, nominal Christian or pagan heathens.
No I do not think He will throw all into hell-fire. This is the God/man who, when on earth, said we are to forgive 70X7 so how merciful will He be.
I have no hatred for any moslem but for the stupid death-loving pagan religion YES! numbat

Hi numie
I agree totally. Anyone who has sex whith a child is a pedophile. Just like Joseph. After all Mary was probably 12 or 13 when she married Joseph [that was the usual age for marriage for Jews of that period] & Joseph would have been about 16 or so [the usual age for males]. Sounds like pedophilia to me!

Now wait a minute you say. That's rediculous. People accepted the idea that people could get married at a younger age back then. Exactly so.

In actual fact MOST people from the middle east during the 1st to 6th centuries held that the proper age for marriage for females was after her first period. That was when her childhood was at an end as far as manny middle eastern societies were concerned. So Joseph wasn't a pedophile. But then by that argument neither was muhammed.

As far as Muhammed being brutal how about this quote from the Psalms "blessed is he who snatches the babe from his mother's arms & dashes it's head out upon the stones" Was Muhammed as brutal as that?

Bosk

I’m very familiar with Psalm 137.

You understand the context in which it was written. Judah was invaded by the Babylonians and many taken into exile back to Babylon. The Jewish nation was in ruins, it must have been desperate times. If you and your family were subjugated I wonder what you would have written.

(As it happened there was a miracle of sorts, King Cyrus of Persia defeated Babylon and was told in a dream to return the Jewish exiles back to their homeland and were allowed to worship their God, the God of one being with Jesus)

The interesting thing about Jewish and Christian scripture is that we’re not ordered to commit intellectual suicide we can contextualize the Bible. As the world changes and our understanding changes the Bible changes. We can see things that earlier generations can’t. The Old Testament is a record of the interaction between God and His chosen people, that has relevance for everyone.

Islamic scripture is very different, it was supposed to have been dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed. There can be no historical context. God wasn’t working through his imperfect children. Humans were by-passed in the Qu’ran. Muslims believe a copy of the Qur’an resides in Heaven. The following link scroll to

“When even the Pope has to whisper”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

explains what I mean. And explains why what you think is a salient point is not.

Islam is a kind of religion that you have no idea of. I urge you to have a closer look. You believe you’re being the epitome of common sense and calm rationality but you’re sadly mistaken. Many are past that point with regard to Islam.

The closer you look the more glaring the difference between Judaism/Christianity and this Islam.

Martin
3 points
1) God working through a falible human being is exactly the same as an angel working through a fallible Muhammed. Quite weird to claim there is any difference!

2) Infanticide is evil. Always was, always will be. For someone to declare that God will bless a jew if he dashes a baby's head out is NOT an example of God working through a falible human being. It is an example of hatred. But hold on a minute. If one of the many writers of the bible could confuse hatred with the voice of God then perhaps there are other mistakes in there.

3) I have a degree in ancient history & am quite aware of the historical context of these events. However your knowledge of the culture of the times seem sorely lacking. For example you wrote in a previous post that Christianity is a historical faith. But history as you understand it is a concept of Greek origin. The people of the Middle East in the 1st Century & before cared only to explain their god's actions in the world. Therefore if they had to change some facts in order to better explain that central truth they would quite happily do that. Not exactly history as you would understand it is it Martin?
What does that mean? Basicly that some of the events & versus unpon which christian doctrines are based may not be accurate. So perhaps you should actually check all the facts & NOT just those that agree with you. For a start I can recommend a very good book "Joshua, the Man They Called Jesus" by Ian Jones. You might also check out the link I provided two posts ago

Ah Numbat! Now you are sounding like one of those fathers who claim: This is no son of mine! And write their son out of the will. ;)

It doesn't change the fact that Islam adopted the fundamentals of how Christianity spread and grew and some of its tenets and that Islam pays its own form of 'respect' to the Christian religion. Mohammed was obviously impressed with the way Christianity grew and he was very clever at picking the parts of Christianity that made it such a successful vehicle for taking over the world. Now Islam is the second largest religion in the world and is growing at the rate of 2.13% per year compared to Christianity's 1.39%.

The Jews felt the same way about the Christians. Christianity was originally a Jewish Sect that evolved to a point where it believed in things that were not within the Jewish fold. The Jews were irate - they kicked the christians out (who until then had worshipped with them in their synagogues) and cried as you have, Numbat, 'this is no son of mine!'

The Christians claimed to respect the Jewish Religion that it grew out of - Heck, the Jewish Old Testament is the largest part of the the Bible. But if Christianity was honest with itself it would admit that it RADICALLY changed the Jewish Faith. It borrowed what it wanted and changed what it didn't like until the Son was no longer recognised by his father and was flung out.

And then the Christians for centuries persecuted their 'father', torturing, killing and marginalising.

But the Jews had a similar fate. The Jews are not the whole sum of the children of Israel. They are the descendents of the tribe of Judah, only one of the twelve tribes of Israel (although it absorbed the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin after the Israelites massacred most of them). So what happened to the other ten tribes? You would have heard of the Samaritans through the parable in the NT. cont...

The Samaritans that are mentioned in the NT claim to be descended from the other tribes. They have their own version of religion similar to Judaism. They believe that the tribe of Judah was part of an early breakaway from the 'true faith'.

In the Bible, God gave the tribe of Levi a monopoly on the priesthood and yet they are one of the tribes of the Samaritans not the Jews.

They bemoan the breakaway and pollution of the original religion by the Jews "You are no son of mine!"

Then the Jews for centuries persecuted their 'father', torturing, killing and marginalising.

And what about the Johanites, the followers of John the Baptist I mentioned in a previous post? And what of the Shiite Ashura?

There are so many examples!

So why do these Middle Eastern Religions kick out their sons? There is an easy answer to that-they are intolerant of change and children always want to change things.

Numbat-where did you get your knowledge of Paganism? Paganism is not a religion-it is the whole range of religions that stand outside the Religions of the Book (ie Jewish, Chrisitan, Islam). That is a heck of a lot of religions. I think you should be more specific about just what you are berrating.

Martin's link doesn't make sense. The Dei Verbum states: 'The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted' But Father Fessio in the article states 'Christianity's Gospels, by the same token, are the reports of human evangelists' as opposed to the Prophet Mohammed who claims that it was directly from God though the Archangel Gabriel.

Either the Gospel is the word of God or its the words of the human evangelists. Father Fessio is outside Church Doctrine, and out of line.

Ah Aziliz: Now you are sounding like one who claims an inheritance that he is not entitled to.
mohamad -the pedophile, by our standards - used parts of the Bible and the parts he used he completely altered. Why? to fit in with him being a descendant of Ishmael. So in his false, blasphemous koran Ishmael gets all the blessings. Must get up moslems noses to read that Israel is the 'Apple of God's eye'
Christianity was seen by some as a Jewish sect but it was not. Admittedly the so-called Christian religion came out of Christianity but they are different.
No Christianity DID NOT! change the Jewish faith PLEASE read this slowly - Christianity was a new faith it's a faith that was taught by Christ Jesus and then Apostles.
Sadly to our shame we did persecute the Jews
Many of the northern kingdom fled to Judea others were captured and they have disappeared. The Samaritans were bought into Israel which was empty and they claimed to be Israelites.
2nd. post: Levites are not never have been Samaritans.
A pagan is one who worships false gods - moslems, buddhists, hindus, animists, satanists, atheists [yes I know they worship no god at all] etc. numbat

Fellow_Human says:

“I will never understand your mob. “

I don’t think you could – to understand is to “question” and examine the answers.

Questioning your own Qur’an is anathema in Islam. You believe it was dictated from Allah to your prophet from a hard copy (stone) in heaven (wherever that is to you).

What mohammad recited was therefore “holy”; recited verbatim and applied without understanding or interpretation.

Yes you have other books to explain it all but this is just because the original assemblage of texts did not make much sense.

How would it make sense? Coming from an Arabic nomad (not a Jew) who is unrelated to Abraham except through a foolish moment of weakness when he married his Egyptian servant, conceiving Ismail (Ishmael). No direct link to mohammad could ever be supported.

God’s (not allah) plan for humanity was given to the Jews. Never did God consider Ishmael as an Israelite: therefore no enheritance promised. (Sorry guys).

Mohammad learned these facts the hard way when he migrated to Madinah after being kicked out from his home town. Jews made fun of him when he (an arab) presented himself as a prophet from their God (Yahweh).

Hell broke lose – his hatred of the Jews and Christians (apparent in the Qur’an) became the tenor of his subsequent "prophetic career” until his death.

I bet you knew all that heh? But that is not the part that could get you too many customers.

This hatred is what we see today from the followers of this deranged person. The majority are illiterate and just follow their enlightened leaders and provocators.

So to say that Islam is an offshoot of Christianity is wrong.

Islam is a faction that grew beyond what their founder initially imagined. His interest grew from a Jesus’ envy that was not to be recognised EXCEPT by force and brutality.

Today islam is grossly mistaken as a "religion" because of its sheer number of muslem born adherents. But to link it to a divine - let alone Abrahamic - religion is blasphemous to say the least.

Bosk. Dictation is different to inspiration. The closest Judaism/ Christianity comes to Islam is the 10 Commandments. Islam believes the whole Quran is like the 10 Commandments. According to surah 43:2, it is the ‘Mother of all Books.’ It is considered to be an exact replica of the ‘Eternal Tablets’ which exist in heaven (surah 85:22).

In the Quran Allah tells Muslims 100's of times to obey the prophet and follow his example.

-53yo polygamist marrying a 6 y.o. - consumating it when she was 9.

-Jesus - man and woman become one flesh - divorce prohibited except for infidelity. This was shocking to everyone hearing it. There was no accomodation to the prevailing norms. Then add the words of non-violence against agression, that he was the Messiah etc, were words that got him tortured to death slowly. Please honestly continue comparing Jesus and Mohammed you'll discover the point I'm making.

There are no 'Babylonians' left, Jews are not in exile in Baghdad anymore. All the injunctions to kill in Allah's name for the spread of Islam are open ended they apply at all times, they are an eternal order.

King David murdered the husband of the woman he wanted, no one believes God orders this even though it is written in the Bible. Because there is context of place and time. This is entirely absent in the Quran.

As for history, of course the writers were members of a culture, place and time. This is the main point I repeat about the Quran and the Bible.

E.Doherty believes Jesus never existed, based on assumptions including (quoting from him)

"To believe that ordinary Jews were willing to bestow on any human man, no matter how impressive, all the titles of divinity and full identification with the ancient God of Abraham is simply inconceivable."

And so it would be: UNLESS it actually happened!

Jesus should have been more written about after refusing to accept Tacitus and Josephus. There is no sign of what Doherty THINKS ought to be written about him.

I won't dignify the charge of selectivity with a response.

Numbat- did you even read what I posted? It is quite clear the 'father' religions reject the 'son' in my post so just being a christian rejecting Islam you fit the profile perfectly.

It is unbelievable what you say about Christianity being a completely new religion - do you know anything about Christianity? At all? I suspect that you really don't. Go look at your bible. Why did the christian church decide to make three quarters of their holy book the Jewish Old Testament? Read Dei Verbum:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Why does the Roman Catholic trace its tradition and more importantly its authority as being handed down from Adam through Abraham and Moses, etc if it isn't claiming heredity through Judaism?

The connection is as plain as the nose on your face. Did the Christians change Judaism to suit their own tastes. Yes radically. Do they claim heredity through Judaism. Hell yes! Jesus was the Messiah. That is a Jewish concept and word. You know zip about christianity.

Do your research on the Samaritans more thoroughly, you are obviously quoting a Jewish source as they are the ones that claim that the Samaritans aren't really israelites.

Try these links:

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

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf

on the DNA of Samaritans: to sum up Samaritans share the same male DNA with the Jews and their female DNA is Iraqi, Jewish and Palestinian in origin. The Samaritans had a policy that men could marry non-samaritans but the woman had to marry samaritans Which explains why there is more diversity in the female DNA. So there, their DNA proves it.

http://www.houseofdavid.ca/sam_mont.htm

Your insistence that all other religions are pagans is a perfect match for Islam believing all other religious adherents are infidels. You prove my point that Christians and Moslems are father and son,

Coach- you are unbelievable, you have not paid attention to a single one of the criticisms of the Christian religion made on this list except to shout 'Anathema!' and then you accuse Fellow-Human of doing precisely what you do! Questioning your own Bible is not something you do.

Coach says Mohammed isn't entitled to the heredity of the Judaic religion, something so laughable when a Christian claims it. Or are you a Jew Coach? What is your entitlement to the Jewish patrimony?

If generations of prophets claimed divine inspiration from God then why not Mohammed? Its only Christianity and Islam that I know of who insist they're the last prophet/mangod. Its a blatant attempt to force their doctrine supreme for all time. Father/Son-pidgeon pair.

Martin says that Christianity is our heritage, our ancestors bequeathed all this good stuff for us. The persecutions arn't good stuff and other trains of thought are equally part of our heritage. Many of my ancestors called themselves 'agnostic'-I can trace that back five generations at least. They believed in a higher power but didn't like Christianity. In an atmosphere of persecution of other religions what else could they do? I have Freemasons in my ancestry-which is a different religion IMO, grandparents and greatgrandmother who were christian scientists who don't believe in Hell, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyters but interestingly the children who took on a different religion to their parents are in the majority. I am related to St Thomas a'Beckett, slain by Anglicans for his Roman Catholicism, St Domenic de Guzman who was instrumental in the crusade against the Cathars and in setting up the order that facilitated the Inquisition, Torquemada the Inquisitor, and a woman accused of witchcraft in 1641. Why were they fighting if not against different heritages? And we're all related to pagans-they're our heritage too.

Christians aren't pacifists, the Roman Catholic Church believes in 'Just War'. Their have been christians on this list who think Jesus was a warrior. Martin you haven't contradicted them directly. If you believe Jesus was a pacifist then become a Quaker, Christian Scientist or a Seventh Day Adventist.

"In the Quran Allah tells Muslims 100's of times to obey the prophet and follow his example." The NT tells you 100's of times to follow Jesus.

Babylonians? Plenty of Christians claim their spirit is alive and needs to be wiped out violently.

Aziliz now we're getting somewhere.A pacifist to me is someone who is prepared to be subjugated or someone who really wants someone else to do the fighting for them. So by this definition Jesus certainly wasn't one Aziliz.

Jesus tells us he is

* "The Way, The Truth and The Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

* "I am the vine and you are the branches. Anyone who lives in me and I in them with bear much fruit."

* "I am the Good Shepherd who lays his life down for his sheep."

* "'Before Abraham ever was; I am.' And they picked up stones to cast at him."

Five Pillars of Islam “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his final prophet”

We should compare the kind of person we would become if 1) We were genuine disciples of Jesus 2) We were genuine disciples of Mohammed.

You already know my conclusions so I ask: look at the Gospels then read the Q and the Sunnah Hadiths (reports contained in Ishaq/Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim). If you take pride in your scholarship at all, if you honestly believe you're a person who seeks the truth then please for all of us, report back what you find.

You would be doing us a great service Aziliz, and I know that is what you want; to be someone who directs us to the truth.

Aziliz: The Old testament is full of Christ,especially Leviticus. As well there are over 300 prophecies about His first coming ALL that's ALL or EVERYONE of them have been fulfilled. Then came this lying, murdering, raping, pedophile who claims his mindless bloodthirsty terrorist hand book supercedes the Bible - what utter, complete garbage and total nonsense and absolute blasphemy.
Yes Christians use both Testaments, yes the Old Testament was written by Israelites. Yes the majority of the New Testament was written by Israelites. That is God's doing and I am not going to take Him to task for using them. Fancy here we have the Eternal God who wrote through the Israelites two Testaments. Then some clown said that this All-Knowing, All-Wise Creator God made a massive , or allowed massive mistakes and errors what inane inept stupid thinking.
Again anyone with half a brain can see that Judaism and Christianity are completely different ways of worship. That's one reason the Jews of today will not accept the New Testament because - wait for it Aziliz - IT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT! Christ bought a new way of course I talk about the very Son of God not some pagan moslem prophet with the same name. If one does not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then one is worshipping a false god. Those who worship false gods are pagans. Now aziliz that not difficult is it? numbat

Numie & Martin.

Quote from Numie "Jews of today will not accept the New Testament because - wait for it Aziliz - IT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!" Totally wrong I'm afraid. It has been conservatively estimated that 90-95% of the teachings of Jesus are merely paraphrases of various portions of the Hebrew Testament. And By the way the Gospels have NOTHING to do with the reasons that orthodox or liberal jews reject Jesus.
There are two reasons.
1) They do NOT believe that Jesus was God.
2) They believe that the Messiah is to reign as a righteous king & protect Israel from it's enemies. Jesus did neither of those things therefore as far as Jews are concerned he was not the messiah.

A quote from Martin "A pacifist to me is someone who is prepared to be subjugated or someone who really wants someone else to do the fighting for them. So by this definition Jesus certainly wasn't one Aziliz." Are you joking? Martin Luther King was NOT anything like your description. He was prepared to let people belt him senseless yet not retaliate or do what they wished. He stood up for the rights of his people & yet did nothing to stop the assaults of others upon himself. How does that square with your definition? it doesn't.
Your remark about Mohammed's writing not having a historical context is just plain silly. Muhammed is a historical person correct? Any historical person has a historical context correct? Therefore Mohammed has a historical context. QED

Now let's go back to Numie. I have already shown why Mohammed was NOT a pedophile Numie. I hope both of you do realise we are supposed to be discussing Jesus here. Muhammed is off topic! Please confine yourself to the topic at hand.
And may I please ask both of you, since most of your arguments concern historical arguments you actually learn some history.
One final point. Martin your arguments concerning inspiration versus dictation I will deal with in my next post. It's interesting but unfortunately totally wrong!

Martin
In a previous post you wrote "Dictation is different to inspiration." Which concept of inspiration?
There is verbal inspiration commonly known as "biblical infallibility" This view is held by many churches & is functionaly equivalent to the dictation view. Indeed this was the view of the catholic church at one point. I have photos of woodcuts showing angels guiding the pen of the apostles. This view doesn't explain the multitude of errors that exist in matters of geography, history, science, etc. :)

Could your concept of inspiration be "thought inspired"? Then how does one explain Psalms that reek of hatred like the one we have discussed? They are evil thoughts. Does God inspire evil thoughts? No? Then this view of inspiration won't do either. :)

To quote wikipedia "Catholic apologetic considers the scriptures first as merely a historical source". But this raises a problem. If the bible is merely a historical resource then it is merely a fallible human document. But this raises a problem. You can NEVER logically gain infalible information from a fallible source. It is a contradiction in terms. So all catholic doctrine would have to be held tentatively. This view would have to be be rejected by you as well. :)

Finally we have the neo-conservative view. It holds that inspiration of God occurs when the mere historical resource & the reader get together. But according to this view view the bible means whatever the reader wishes it to mean. So which view do you hold Martin?

Now some corrections:

You wrote that divorce was prohibited by Jesus except for adultery & that this shocked everyone who heard. Wrong!
Many Pharisees had advocated the same thing for over a century. Hardly shocking by Jesus' time.

You wrote that Jesus was executed because he taught that he was the messiah. Wrong! In point of fact Jesus was executed by the Romans because they saw him as a political threat to Roman rule. They couldn't have cared less about his claims to messiahship.

With respect Martin please learn about history & scripture before you argue about it.

Numbat,

“I have no hatred for any moslem but for the stupid death-loving pagan religion YES!”

Let me share a story: in 1983 after high school graduation, a bunch of Islamists at Uni picked on us, Moslems who went to Christian/ Catholic schools.

Our response was: what do you have against Christians or Catholics? ISn’t some of our best teachers here at uni are, in fact Christian?

His response was exactly like yours: “I don’t hate them, its their religion”.

Interesting to see religious wackos have a lot more in common than they think.

Coach,

Your comments define exactly what is wrong with Christianity today: philosophy!
The difference between Judaism/ Islam and Christianity is people like you who insist in ‘philosophical inserts’ in religion.

Bosk - for the record:

Jesus on DIVORCE:

[Matthew 19:1-12]-

Then the Pharisees arrived with a test-question.

"Is it right," they asked, "for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds whatever?"

"Haven't you read," he answered, "that the one who created them from the beginning 'made them male and female' and said: 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

So they are no longer two separate people but one. No man therefore must separate what God has joined together."

"Then why," they retorted, "did Moses command us to give a written divorce-notice and dismiss the woman?"

"It was because you knew so little of the meaning of love that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives! But that was not the original principle. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife on any grounds except her unfaithfulness and marries some other woman commits adultery."

His disciples said to him, "If that is a man's position with his wife, it is not worth getting married!"

________________
Jesus Execution - note Pilate's (Romans) attitude

Matthew 27

22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They (jews) all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!

Bosk, numbat was saying that the law has been superseded in the New Testament; this is the difference to Judaism. Of course she knows that Jews don’t acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

I deliberately gave my personal definition of a pacifist so there would be no misunderstanding, and concluded Jesus was not one by my definition. If Jesus’ wasn’t then MLK Jr wasn’t one either. I’d like a word for those great souls, champions of non-violent resistance, that won’t be confused with my definition of a pacifist.

I said the Quran as a book lacks context, not Mohammed. But since you brought it up. It is many times more difficult trying to prove Mohammed was an historical figure than it is Jesus, yet you have no problem with accepting M’s historicity but trot out E.Doherty who doesn’t believe Jesus exists. You can’t have your cake and eat it too Bosk.

But anyway given you missed the point this is what I was talking about.

"When reviewing the primary papers of any dogma we must be mindful that context comes in three forms. There is the context of historical chronology-that of circumstance, place, people, and time. There is the context of adjacency -the proximity of related words and thoughts within the writings themselves. And context can be topical; in this case similar themes can be brought together and organized by subject. All forms of context provide clarity.
Unfortunately, the Qur'an fails its faithful on all three counts. The book lacks any semblance of chronology. It is deficient when it comes to providing the required context of place, people, and time. Adjacent verses are usually unrelated and often contradictory."

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

You should check for yourself what a disorganised mishmash the Quran is, (twenty percent is incomprehensible). It requires other texts, the Sunnah, to interpret it.

You have too great a confidence in the power of your reasoning Bosk. You haven’t proved M was not a paedophile. Read this debate with a Grand Ayatollah from Iran

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/montazeri1.htm

Numbat-I was talking about Christians claiming a heritage-go reread my posts.

Numbat says: "As well there are over 300 prophecies about His first coming ALL that's ALL or EVERYONE of them have been fulfilled" QED if Chistianity was so independent from the Jews why bother 'fulfill' these prophecies? To claim the Jewish Heritage. Add what I said in previous posts and you're just helping me make my case watertight.

"Fancy here we have the Eternal God who wrote through the Israelites two Testaments" that is your opinion. Numbat there is absolutely no point saying one book is the word of God because the book says so, and then when another book does the same thing, ie claims it is the word of God because it says so, say its a bunch of lies. Its so hypocritical of you to claim that God was behind the Old and New Testament when the religion of the OT has rejected the New Testament with as much passion as you now reject Islam. Mohammed saw the way Christianity just hijacked the Jewish Heritage and decided he could do the same. He copied Christianity. If Christianity is going to use that tactic how can it complain if someone else follows their example?

Which brings me to Martin. What's the point of quoting to me parts of the NT saying its the Truth, etc? You think if the Bible says 'I'm telling the truth, I am good and I am all powerful' then I'm going to sit back and say 'oh yeah of course you are because you say you are'? As they say-every criminal in prison swears he's innocent and every politician makes promises he has no intention of keeping.

"Then add the words of non-violence against agression,"-quote from Martin about Jesus. That is pacifism Martin. I also agree with Bosk there's a third option with pacifism that is neither bending the neck to tyrants nor being violent.

I have read the Gospels and the Koran, I haven't read the Sunnah Hadiths but I am not going to race off and read them right now.

I'm not saying Islam is better than Christianity-I am saying that Islam is modelled on Christianity in many ways and its about time Christianity looked at the similarities and realised its those similarities that make Islam both so successful and so dangerous as it has Chrisitanity. Your eyes are clear to perceive Islam's faults and are blinded when christian faults are mentioned. What did you say about the slavery and the support for dictators? That its not relevant to today? That's what Moslems say about Ayeesha. Father/Son-peas in a pod.

Do you know what pacifism means? It means a belief in peace. Martin Luther thought he was a pacifist even if you don't: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/peace-&-war/start/peace-portraits/king-martin-luther.htm

Bosk-I brought up Islam. I didn't realise that it was going to make Numbat so polemical, but if you read my posts I bring up other religions left, right and centre but noone commented until I mentioned Islam and then the fireworks started.

At this point things are getting very circular. I feel like withdrawing because I am just repeating myself.

Chrisitanity doesn't encourage rationality-it encourages blind faith, and arguing with people talking about their blind faith, who don't accecpt any authority outside the bible, who say they accept uncritically the Bible as the absolute Truth even when they concede they don't take the whole Bible literally and think parts of it are irrelevant to today.

I concede I don't take the whole Bible literally and think parts of it are irrelevant for today and therefore I cannot in all conscience believe that it's the Ultimate Truth or Divine Revelation. Anyone that can do both is being hypocritical-it doesn't make sense. I can understand people saying the NT changes the OT which is why I try to confine my discussions to the NT where possible, but there's no logical explanation offered by christians on this list for how they justify their belief of part only and the whole of the Bible at the same time as yet.

According to Dei Verbum the authors inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit and hence the Bible teaches without error that which God wanted to put into sacred writings for the purpose of Salvation. But because this happens through humans in a human way we have to search out their meaning, understand literary forms and customs, culture, situation and vernacular of the authors

Holy Scripture must be read in the spirit with which it was written, so no less attention must be paid to the unity and context of the whole scripture.

Read Chapter III Dei Verbum

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/38/Dei_Verbum__The_Dogmatic_Constitution_on_Divine_Revelation_of_Vatican_II_.html

Bosk. Everyone knows Pontius Pilate didn’t want to crucify Jesus. It wasn’t the Romans who wanted him dead it was the Jews. The Good News of Jesus Christ, if true, is the pivot of all history. Even without faith it is monumental history. You must take your own advice with regard to understanding scripture and history.

Coach explained before I could, Matthew (19:3-12)

Coach was much more generous than I would have been after the last line of your post.

Godbless Bosk

Bosk:Not totally wrong at all,Christ did away with the following - Aaronic priesthood, the Temple [Yeeeees! I know many new Christians continued going to the Temple but they did not have to for salvation]including the Holy of Holies, the ten commandments,the Sabbath, clean and un-clean food, the Holy Days, animal sacrifices etc etc.
They saw the miracles and as Nicodemus said "WE that's the Sanhedrin know you are from God". They did not want to believe He was God. Judaism had become a man made man led religion by this time.
Most didn't follow the new way but thousands did including many Pharisees.
Little mo was, by our standards, a stinking steaming pedophile. Married a six year old girl whome some claim he constantly fondled had full blown sex when this lass was nine. Bosk you neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Jesus was executed because He claimed to be the Son of God. Was handed over the Romans on a trumped up charge so He would be crucified. By the way Psalm 22 describes death by crucifixion which was unknown in those days - strange that eh?
Again wives could be divorced on trivial excuses in those days.
Fellow_Human:So a pack of moslems told you as I did - so what? I can catagorically state that I do not hate moslems.
Aziliz: There are enough or more than enough fulfilled prophecies in the Holy Bible to prove that it is from God and the only book [both testaments] from God. numbat

Martin, Numbat & Coach
Ok, let's go your route. Who wrote the Gospels?

If Matthew was a former tax gatherer (actually a telones, a customs collector, who became a follower of Jesus why did he need to borrow so much of his material & even his wording from Mark who wasn't one of the 12? Why did Matthew make stupid mistakes like calling Pontius pilate Procurator when he was the Prefect of Judaea?

If the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark why'd he make so many mistakes concerning geography, the people & the language? He'd lived in the area all his life.

If the Gospel of John was written by John the Galillean fisherman then why did he leave out every event in which John was supposedly an eye witness? John even starts out his gospel with a quote from Parmenides' the way of truth. Did John study Greek philosophy while he was waiting to pull the nets in? :)

How about the accuracy of the Gospels regarding the crucifixion. Was it the 3rd hour as Mark 15:25 declares? Or was it the 6th hour as John 19: 14, 15 says?

Let's examine THE doctrine of Christianity - the resurrection. No two gospels agree on who found Jesus' empty tomb.

Mark says 3 women & who see a young man.

In Matthew two Mary's approach the tomb when an earthquake occurs, an angel rolls away the tomb & sits on it.

Luke's women already find the tomb empty & two [not one] men in shining robes.

While in John mary Magdelene is the first to find the tomb empty & she finds it ALONE.

They can't all be true!

And what are we to make of this? In John 20: 17 Jesus orders Mary Magdelene NOT to touch him. Yet according to Matt 28:9 she held him by the feet. So did she touch him or didn't she?

Fact is the gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses [otherwise they would not be riddled by contradictions] & therefore you gentlemen know NOTHING about what Jesus said or did!

Bosk,

Who wrote the gospels ? what do you care bosk?

For a christian that lives by Grace "in-Christ" we don't have to prove anything to pagans who cannot understand God's mind because they do not have that connection through the holy spirit. What is clear to us will always remain a stumbling block to you because of your lack of faith.

Grow up and don't try to explain God.

______________

Fellow Human,

That's right when the argument is two direct for you take a detour or two, right?

Philosophy - you bet - at least Christian CAN question their own beliefs. We don't always have all the answers, after all if we did we wouldn't need God.

Here's a philosophical question for you:

If God and Allah are one and the same - as you pretend - how come the same God is turning Bush and Bin Laden against each other?

Now how to respond. :D

Ok Martin, Numie & coachie here we go.

The new testament is a collection of Myths & therefore you CANNOT know anything that Jesus said only what a writer says he said. Big Difference. Want proof?
http://www.sof-in-australia.org/fundament.htm

How about all the prophecies concerning jesus you ask? Just bad methodology I'm afraid.
http://www.bibleorigins.net/OTPropheciesFlawedMethodologies.html

As for you coachie let me quote what I said earlier. If you are still a human being then you are fallible just like the rest of us. That being so perhaps you should look into ALL evidence which concerns your faith & NOT just the evidence which agrees with you. That is unless the God which you truly worship is named EGO & NOT Jesus at all. So are you more interested in proving coachie's interpretation of scripture correct or in getting to the truth? Which will it be coachie?

Aziliz
A genuine pleasure. I found your link concerning NDE's very interesting & am going to print myself a copy. If I may express a personal opinion for the moment I have found your arguments both intelligent, informative & logical. And I'm not easily impressed! :)
I'm toddling off myself, but if you're staying to battle it out with these fellows then may I offer an ancient Egyptian blessing?
May God stand between you & harm in all the empty places where you must walk.
Bye for now
Bosk

Bosk,

Without scrolling through earlier posts (haven't got time and so prefer not to unless I have to). Your comments caught my attention.

You said there are 'a number of' inconsistency and contradictions in the Gospels. True, but then you said they are 'riddled by contradictions'. That's not the same thing, is it?

Worst, then you presume those gentlemen know NOTHING about what Jesus said or did. Are your assertions even remotely coherent?

I'm sure none of us even know whether Jesus is left or right-handed. Does that mean there can be no faith in Jesus?

Quite on the contrary, if the Bible is 100% void of inconsistency then I'd be worried. Because that could be strong indication that scriptures had been doctored to perfection by a very sophisticated enterprise. In fact given the size of the Bible, they probably need a computer to do that even in those day.

Your judgement is very common and hence is not surprising. But I have noticed inconsistency in the Bible that actually made me glad because they are indications that those who put together the scriptures (and who no doubt had problems recognising some writings in the original scripts) probably DID NOT make assumption one way or another. They probably DID NOT make alteration just so the words or numbers match up between two sources or chapters. Those are left to you and me to read and decide for ourselves. I certainly have no problem with that.

Had someone like you been involved in the writing then the disaster could have been unthinkable - A PERFECT BIBLE.

Aziliz,

I couldn't resist scrolling a bit as your name was mentioned by Bosk. You two seem to have mutual admiration for each other. It is not a pot and kettle relationship, I hope.

So you do not think that Islam is better than Christianity, just that they are similar in many ways.

But who really cares if one is BETTER than the others? That is not the issue. Not even the faults are the issue.

The crux of the matter is - one of them is a hoax.

Is it a surprise I think the one with the 'perfect' scriptures aka Islam - fits the bill perfectly?

Bosk: The Bible tells me 'not to cast pearls before you know what' So if you do not know nor want to know the fundamentals then how can you grasp or remotely understand the deeper things which would answer your puerile questions.
I say again - sadly, would you believe? - You neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God. numbat

A musing:

If the Devil wanted to create a religion for trapping the wicked, how would he devise it?

He wouldn't want good people to be attracted to it so what motivators would he use to attract people?

Greed and Fear are good, after_all how many sins are motivated by these two factors? So create a Heaven, the ultimate place of Greed and a Hell(Sheol), the ultimate place of Fear.

He'd trap the sanctimonious/self-righteous by making it a club where outsiders will be cast into the pit. Membership of the club is gained by blind'faith' in him and believing others outside the club are 'evil'. He doesn't want compassionate people only bigots and sadists who get high that others will suffer an eternity of torture and frightened people who go out to 'save' souls (for him!).

His followers will be willing to cast people they know to be undeniably good into hell if not in this religion.

He'd have this mild, loving son whom he'll torture, kill and have his followers eat him. Cannibilism-if his followers are stupid enough to eat the son_of_God, they'd be absolutely twisted. He'll insert a Doctrine of Transubstantiation insisting they're eating real flesh and real blood so there's no argument about it being 'symbolic'. Then he'd say-don't worry good people die for your meanness and cruelty so you don't have to. Hear him laughing?

He'd have rules about helping dictators and obeying slavedrivers so the most wicked would see how great his religion is for exploiting the weak and naive.

He'll say he's the God-of-Love but anyone who's loving will recognise the threats of torture in the next life, tortures in Revelations and the torture and killing of his own Son aren't the mark of a loving God and leave.

He'll make miracles and prophecies to impress the feeble-minded and he'll say 'only a wicked generation needs a sign'-so if they have any intelligence they'll know he means them (the prophecies will be weak and full of holes and the miracles just magic stories anyway).

He'll call his followers 'sheep'. Sheep are dumb-and-scared with a mob mentality. Saying 'they're sheep' means they'll follow the mob even into cruelty, unkindness, and folly.

He's the Good-Shepherd means he'll fleece the sheep-'getting fleeced' means 'ripped off'. He'll also slaughter the sheep, especially lambs for food. No Shepherd is in it for thelove of sheep. Meat and wool more like.

He'll make the pacifism strong enough to attract pseudo-pacifists (scared weaklings) but not strong enough that the aggressive and violent don't get torture and bloodshed to attract them. He wants a range of sinners.

He'll have a Judgement-Day/Apocalypse to increase fear/urgency and feed the bigotted and violent tendencies in some of his followers.

He'll fill mental institutions with people who took the religion too seriously-who 'see' devils, ghosts and angels in their psychotic attacks.

He'll create another very similar religion. Same Heaven/Hell/Judgement-Day and club/intolerance so they'll rip each other to pieces never realising they're born from the same seed of hatred/intolerance. No fun if there's just one religion.

He'll get crusaders wading in the blood of 'pagans, infidels and heretics' and inquisitors torturing and executing innocents. Afterall he's the scorpion torturer of Revelations. He'll have even elected leaders (to prove the complicity of the sheep) calling 'crusade' and 'crush the evil ones', while they set up prisons for torture, bomb civilians,even children to secure Middle Eastern oil, he'll use of depleted uranium so babies will be born deformed.

Although some pretty things in His Holy Book may attract the naive, he'll have so many contradictions in it that anyone can justify anything. Anyone looking for true wisdom will give up in exasperation and leave the religion.

Yes that's the kind of religions that would be created to trap 'evil' people. Perfect.

Thanks Bosk-likewise I've learnt from your contribution.

GZTan-Wrong metaphor. The kettle calling the pot black requires Bosk to criticise me, not be in mutual admiration. Bad start for you. I would recommend you read the thread from the beginning as it's hard for you to comment on things otherwise.

Bye all, may you discover true love and compassion.

And He'd still love a child who could read the Gospels and still not see his love shining like a beacon in world full of the lies and evil of a FALLEN humanity.

The fallen part we his children forget so readily.

Godbless Aziliz

Aziliz,

I thought there's enough for me to comment on as it's, though I did quickly skim over your earlier postings and quite 'randomly' pick out this:-

You wrote: "Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees etc, etc."

You argument seems to always revolve around a 'hypocrisy of it all' thinking.

My points:
1. Atrocities attributed to Allah is a real and present threat today. It concerns real people alive today.
2. The slaughtering in the name of God/Jehovah was years gone by... ie. history. Though savage it must had been, I guess human were pretty savage in those days anyhow. But you're judging from a present day viewpoint.
3. What would today be like, had those killings not taken place? I don't know. But perhaps some nasty events in the past had to happen for reasons which we are not in a position to discern.
4. When did you last had KFC? Did you nearly spew when thinking how terrible it must had been for that chicken to be slaughtered and be consumed? Have you stopped eating KFC as a result? If not, isn't there some inconsistency in your way of thinking ?
5. What about comparing killings during the World Wars, and Pol Pot communist regime of death? I dare say some of the killings in the OT may even pale to 'insignificance'.
6. I think it's necessary to keep a proper perspective on what is the crux of the matter, instead of just being cynical.

Perhaps I'm a bit muddled right now. Aren't you and Bosk Muslims who are happy to 'bash up' Christians for "blind faith"? If you're indeed Muslims, then aren't you both blind as well? And worst, blind in faith in a religion which is but a hoax?

Aziliz: You hope we find true love and compassion sound like you are saying that pagan islam is love and compassion, surely you are not completely blind and stupid have a good look around this troubled globe and just see where 90% of the killing, rape,utter brutality is.
The leaders of what religion are calling for the complete erasure of other beliefs?
What religion punishes homosexuality by death yet allows pederasty -go too <http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/19.htm> Here you will see photos of followers of a certain pagan religion killing and brutalising one of another faith.Here you will see photos of victims of summary street executions with children watching. Here you will see the results of Beslan,completely innocent CHILDREN raped and shot in the back. Here you will see a photo of a pagan leader kissing a boy in front of other boys.This pagan leader is bending over a boy holding him in his arms and giving this poor lad a full-on kiss. As would a decent normal bloke do to a woman he loves. There is so much there showing the "love and compassion and peaceful intent" of a pycopathic, brutal, misogynistic pagan religion.
By the way you are a total Biblical illiterate and you by quoting your puerile explanations are making a complete idiot of yourself and your fine loving and kind religion. numbat

Jesus was simply a fraud who knew how to con people into getting his way. He was final caught out and paid the ultimate price for ‘blaspheming’ the then current religion.

Reading a great book.
Its about why the Christian religion can not be the one followed by the prophets and the apostles of the real Messiah.
If you had question about the inconsistency in the teachings of all the churches this is a great book to clear up the confusion.
You will come away with a new look on The Scriptures and a hope you never found in todays version of Christianity.

www.weeblindmice.com

BillyBayou

Noone who read my posts and had one tiny speck of an ability to comprehend anything could possibly call me a Moslem. I so obviously criticise both Christianity and Islam. Amazing, isn't it? There are people who so misinterpret their world and the people around them so they can maintain their 'us and them' mentality. Critique. Yes for sure. The world needs to examine more truthfully what's happening. But to do it so blindly. What is the point if you just 'make up' what you want the other person in a debate to be or believe and don't listen to their words?

Ah-so sad. This is why it's impossible to speak to or rationalise with most Christians. I don't say that just based on this list-I am surrounded by Chrisitans who there is no point in engaging in discussion or debate.

No, I am not a Moslem, but I still don't condone what the West has done in the Middle East. Over centuries they have oppressed, massacred and manipulated.

It was the French and the British who, as the Ottoman Empire of the Turks was crumbling, waded in pretending to be liberators and then carved up the Middle East for their own commercial interests. Lawrence of Arabia who had stirred up the Arabs to support the West in their war against the Turks refused to accept the medals that his country awarded him because he was so upset when he found out the British had no intention to hand autonomy over to the Arabs but to subjugate them to their own economic advantage instead. Syria became France's-and they bombed Damascus 1925 & 1926 when the Syrians complained. Iraq became Britains possession and they bombed Bagdad and other parts of Iraq when it rebelled.

Who was the first to gas the Kurds. Winston Churchill. The Kurds were bombed relentlessly because they fought for autonomy for themselves. When the British and French divided up the Middle East they gave no homeland to the Kurds but left their traditional lands partly in Turkey, in Iraq and in Iran because the Kurds defied them.

The Iraqis fought for nearly two decades to get the British out and in the end it was the second World War and the financial depletion that Britain suffered because of it that eventually got them out. But they invited the US in to take over. The British gave Saudi Arabia to one family the Sauds-a brutal dictatorship who have been in the Wests pocket ever since-Osama Bin Ladin and most of the people who were involved in the WTC incident were Saudis-not Iraqis.

The British created Jordan and put a puppet kingship in that was in their pocket and although the British originally fought against the Jews in Israel, the US soon realised that having a non-arab country in the area, provided it cooperated fully with the west, was a military strategic advantage.

The French left Syria and Lebanon at the end of the Second World War-but the British/US manipulation of the Middle East for their own economic advantage continues to the present day.

By the way-did you see Dateline and the new Abu Graib torture pictures? The ones released to date are just the nice ones-these are horrific. Well the rest of the world has seen them even though they haven't been released in the US. And yes Donald Rumsfeld approved torture techniques like stripping prisoners naked, sleep deprivation, stress positions and harrassing with dogs, etc.

And Bush is a President who thinks God is guiding him and who has the 'Christian' right voting him in. Just the same with Howard here. Christians are still torturers and still invade other countries for their own economic gain as they have for 1700 years.