Donald Trump is beloved by his diehard fans in the United States, but one man has taken his devotion to the president to a strange new place - and he lives 13,000km away on a different continent.

Indian man Bussa Krishna has spent the past three years worshipping Trump as a God, carrying around a picture of the president and praying to him several times a day.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/06/27/11/20/indian-man-worships-donald-trump-as-god-bussa-krishna?ref=BP_RSS_ninenews_0_indian-man-worships-us-president-donald-trump-as-a-god_270618

What is your view for one to worship humans?

It is not my intention to hurt any ones feelings but as an ex born again ,very much full on, I think recent history shows faith in any group or leader tends to blind us faith its self,every one of them, has shown more damage has been done than good, we should form opinions after a leader has shown some thing to like, not before

NathanJ.,

People worship different things in various parts of
the world. They take a multitude of forms. People
may worship gods, ancestors, totems, saints, and so on.
They may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals,
or solemn prayer. The great variety of behaviour makes it
very difficult to say exactly what "religion" is.

We're more familiar with the ethnocentric Judeo-Christian
ideas about religion. These ideas are based on a number
of central beliefs: that there exists one supreme being
or God: that God created the universe and all life and takes
a continuing interest in the creation, that there is a life
hereafter; and that our moral behaviour in this life
influences our fate in the next. In cross-cultural terms,
however, this particular combination of beliefs is unusual.
Many religions do not recognise a supreme being, and a
number do not believe in gods at all.

Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the
universe and life, leaving these problems to be dealt with
instead by non-religious myth. Many religions assume that the
gods take little interest in human affairs. Some have almost
nothing to say about life after death, and many - perhaps
most - do not link our earthly morality with our fate beyond
the grave.

Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of Western
religious tradition alone.

Therefore this person in India who has chosen to worship
US President Donald Trump - should not come as a surprise
to us. There are quite a few groups who believe in worshipping
saints for example - there's even religious orders that have been
set up as a result of doing this. However, in the case of the
US President - this just may have only a following of one.
But who knows - with enough publicity - the man just may get
to meet his "god" one day.

to worship the created whether it be Trump, Clinton, Madonna, nature, animals or oneself is obviously idolatry. The Creator is the only One we should worship. The bible clearly reveals who our Creator is.

As Foxy mentioned, such worship needs to be understood in its cultural context.

Bussa Krishna is a Hindu and Hinduism recognises that while God is one, no human mind can encompass His(/Her/Its) Reality and so it is better (usually up until a very advanced spiritual stage) to use some image of one's most personally-beloved deity for focusing effectively on God in the meanwhile. Hinduism understands that God is neither a deity, nor human nor an animal, etc., so the image only REPRESENTS God for its worshipper.

This seems to be what Bussa Krishna is doing.

Why Trump? I really don't know, but if this is not a pretence, if this is truly Bussa's most inspiring and desirable representing-form of God ("Ishta-Deva"), then why not?

---

When I was young and immature, I heard rumours that the Beatles are God. I also heard other rumours that they tell people to take drugs.

Combining the two pieces of information, I became afraid: What if the Beatles tell me to take drugs - no one can refuse God...

So my conclusion and decision was: well, the Beatles live in England, so I should never go to England, then they won't catch me and tell me to take drugs!

runner,

What about those who are not Christians?
The Bible has not meaning for them.

Men and women aren't meant to be worshiped. That's a place that is meant for God alone. The other side of the coin, I don't think it's healthy for the person being worshiped either. It's not just that this guy is being unhealthy to himself by worshiping Trump or any other person. But if a person recieves worship from someone, that's unhealthy too.

NNS,

Men and women aren't meant to be worshipped?

And yet they are. We all have people we "worship"
from our parents, teachers, siblings, friends,
to role models, celebrities, rock-stars, football
players, movie stars, royalty and so on.

Much of that we out grow or our tastes change and we
move on. But others remain. I guess that's life and
it's probably always been that way. We've always looked
up to our "heroes." No matter where we've found them.

Hi Foxy I think it's obvious if they are not worshipping the God of Israel then they are not worshipping God. No about of denial or ignorance will ever dethrone the One who has always been.

runner,

There are many religions in the world.
Not just yours. And with all due respect.
all of the members of these religions are
like convinced that theirs is the one true
faith and that all others are misguided,
superstitious, even wicked.

We like other empirical sciences such as
economics, or chemistry, are not simply
competent to investigate the supernatural
or play umpire between competing faiths.

Still I suspect that just like Mr Thwackum,
a character in Henry Fielding's novel,
"Tom Jones" declares "When I mention
religion, I mean the Christian religion, and
not only the Christian religion, but the
Protestant religion, and not only the
Protestant religion, but the Church of
England." Most people are like Mr Thwackum when
they mention religion, they have their own in
mind.

Dear foxy,

It is interesting to think of our own resident Trump worshipers and what ranking of devoutness we would be inclined to give each of them.

Where would you place the following in the Clan of Trump?

It is a toss up but I'm giving Hasbeen the number 1 spot, followed very closely behind by mhaze. Third of course would be ttn, then possibly runner.

Yes Foxy for the time being you have a choice to choose the True God or some false god. Either Jesus was lying , deceiving people or telling the truth. You can twist or deny His words but frankly He does not leave it as an option. Funny how you don't sit on the fence when it comes to politics but very much so when it comes to faith in Christ. I would of thought eternity is far more important than playing silly semantics

Dear runner,

Jesus is not the God of Israel and God's chosen people do not recognise him as divine.

They soon will Steele. The complete irrational hatred of Israel from the left has everything to do with the God of Israel. Fulfilment of prophecy certainly pokes the foolish atheist in the eye. Jesus was described as the Holy One of Israel.

To Foxy.

Looking up to role models and heroes is vastly different from worshiping either. I would say that people's obsession with celebrities is also unhealthy; but worshiping any man or woman is even more so an unhealthy state to be in. Don't pray to men or women because they can't do anything to answer the prayers and likely don't know your praying (unless you do it in front of them). Bowing down and worshiping people is also just as bad. The only exception to this rule is to worship Jesus as part of worshiping God. But Jesus is the exception to this rule because He is the son of God and because he's the only way to God. (Not to mention because He died for our sins, and loved the world he came to save).

No matter how you look at it though, if a person worships any other person, or if that other person knows this and recieves that worship, then they (either of them) have done a despicable thing worth rejecting and turning away from.

Those who worship humans will always be let down by humans.

And Foxy, the ideas that...
"there exists one supreme being
or God: that God created the universe and all life and takes
a continuing interest in the creation, that there is a life
hereafter; and that our moral behaviour in this life
influences our fate in the next"
...are not peculiarly Judeo-Christian; they're also central to Islam.

There are many religions in the world.
Foxy,
Doesn't therein lie the fundamental problem ?

runner this world at least in this country supports your right to your view, it may not support mine, see it is my view we invented God, every one of them,OK we may have needed them,but if we look, eyes and heart open,we must ask why so many? why so different? why is ours the true one? blind unquestioning view that God loves us more than other humans is not in my view sustainable

As I understand it, with my limited knowledge, Hinduism is a Philosophy. Hindu's follow a Saint. They don't Worship anyone in the Christian sense. They follow a particular Saints teachings. Much like Christians follow Yeshua ha-Notzri (AKA Jesus). I defer to Yutsie in this matter.

But, Who does that? In India it is explainable. The Worship of the Beatles, Taylor, Kardashians, etc? In the West I would consider this to be a mental Illness.

The number of Storkers, Suicides etc, attributed to this type of Worship is testimony to this type of Mental Illness.

runner: Either Jesus was lying , deceiving people or telling the truth.

Well really it wasn't Jesus. There are no writings by Yeshua ha-Notzri himself. There is only the writings of the Apostles who had never even met the man & some Epistles from people who had. Then there's Paul who hijacked the Teachings anyway. I suggest Paul was a conman, after all he was a Tax Collector for the Jewish Temple who decided that collecting money was a great Scam.

You can argue whatever you folks like.

People will still continue to do as they've
always done - which is choose their own
beliefs to follow despite what any of you
think is right or wrong for them.

Some form of religion has existed in every
society that we know of. Religious beliefs and
practices are so ancient that they can be traced
into pre-history hundreds of thousands of years
ago. Even the primitive Neanderthal people of
that time, it seems, had some concept of a
supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.
Among the fossilized remains of these cave dweller,
anthropoligists have found evidence of funeral
ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts
thata were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany
them on the journey to an afterlife.

As stated earlier religion is a universal social
institution, it takes a multitude of forms. Believers
may worship gods, ancestors, totems, saints, and many
others; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals,
or solemn prayer.

Whether they should or should not do this is irrelevant.
The fact remains - that they do.

Runner,

You have no way of knowing what I believe in or do not.
And you're in no position to comment on it. Talk about
things that you may know instead.

Jayb

' I suggest Paul was a conman, after all he was a Tax Collector for the Jewish Temple who decided that collecting money was a great Scam.'

by all means reject Paul as speaking the truth but don't insult with such nonsense. As with just about all the apostles all they needed to do was deny the resurrection to save their own lives. Instead they chose lives of suffering and death in many cases due to their faith in Jesus Christ.
Your suggestion of Paul who was well off and highly regarded until he met Christ on his way to Damascus is sheer nonsense. People who deny Christ come up with the most pitiful excuses to this day.

rather not offend than continue trying to highlight other views exist runner, I however doubt the Christ I once followed would be too pleased to see today's humanity to see some of the views you hold and the pain we inflict on each other in the name of GOD

'I once followed would be too pleased to see today's humanity to see some of the views you hold and the pain we inflict on each other in the name of GOD'

actually Belly the way people abuse, use, murder unborn in the name of no god is far greater in the Western world than pain caused by religion. Just an inconvenient truth.

Religion is a dangerous topic on which to speak, as generally you'll offend someone, usually unintentionally and then you'll involve yourself in an some protracted argument.

I've often wondered whether or not we seek a supernatural being (a God or Jesus) as some sort of a lifejacket. Just in case there is a hereafter when we die? Having been with a number of people at the point of their death, many mention God, Jesus or both. And it's damn hard to know what to say to them in return - so I generally agree with everything they might say about their religion, thus you can't go too far wrong? A tough topic?

runner,

So once again you're for the rights of the
unborn child - but you supported Trump putting
children in cages.

There's a word for people like you.

Hi Foxy

with people with your level of truthfulness their is a word for you also.

The one for you is more descriptive!

Oh but we should not judge should we Foxy?

runner: Instead they chose lives of suffering and death in many cases due to their faith in Jesus Christ.

Yes, a lot of people do that. Get burned at the Stake, Roasted, Blow themselves up for their particular Religion. Ay.

Runner: Your suggestion of Paul who was well off and highly regarded until he met Christ on his way to Damascus is sheer nonsense.

I didn't say he was well off & never mentioned the meeting with a supposedly dead man on the way to Damascus.

Paul was a member of the Jewish Temple Council who condemned Steven to death. He was a Gentile, therefore not considered by the Jews to be a real Jew. He could, however touch money donated to the Temple by Gentiles & hand it to the High Priest to be blessed, before they could touch it. That's history, & that is well known.

So when Paul is coming back from Damascus he meets Yeshua ha-Notzri (One of Jesus's real names) who is supposed to be dead. This would have be a few years after he had been Crucified I'd say, because it would have been after Steven was tied up between two Pillars & shot up with arrows, Jesus would have been on his way back to Northern India. I suppose Yeshua said to him, "You are good enough to collect their money for them but you can't be a full Jew, mate. You are being discriminated against & treated like a fool."

I guess Paul thought about it & thought to himself, "I'm collecting all this money & being treated like $#it. I join this lot & make a few quid." Unfortunately the Apostles rejected him also. (big punch up) History. So he went off on his own.

Have you got any literature written by Yeshua himself? I didn't think so.

To the tune of the jazz standard:

Six feet two, eyes of blue,
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew.
Has anybody seen my lord?

Prominent Nose, there he goes
Preaching so that every knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared in the abdomen
By a Roman,
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said.
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died still a Jew
Still a Jew, so why aren't you
Has anybody seen my lord?

Many people called Christians somehow manage to worship a dead Jew while ignoring his religion. Go figure.

runner,

But we shouldn't judge?

So you do listen to what I've been telling you.

Awesome.

Shame you don't act on it though.

Because you should remember - one can't proclaim
the Gospel of Jesus - without
the tangible witness of one's life.

davidf maybe we should have a like button as that other place has? liked your contribution and have a large stack I could contribute but will not bother two things come to mind, I once said *if you fall over it will be a Christian/or person of faith* that helps you get up, not sure that is the case in Trumps America, the second is *if such as runner are not entitled to their opinion, are we entitled to ours*?
Quite sure however runners opinion of me has entitled me to mine of his contributions here

One may have a sincere faith. One may be convinced of the truth of that faith. One may sacrifice and die in furtherance of that sincere faith. One may kill for that faith. However, the faith may be absolute rubbish. The sincerity, sacrifice and death may be wasted in pursuit of that rubbish.

Dear runner,

Do you sincerely believe that if your mother and father had been Muslims you would have awakened one morning and said, "Oops! I got the wrong God."

david f,
Christians and Muslims worship the same God, despite having very different ideas about what He wants. Therefore your question to runner should have been:

Do you sincerely believe that if your mother and father had been Muslims you would have awakened one morning and said, "Oops! I got the wrong prophet."?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Jayb,
Where did you get the absurd idea that Paul (or Saul as he was before becoming a Christian) was a gentile?

Hi Davidf If my mother followed a prophet that had Mohammed track record I would leave at the first opportunity. I left the Catholic church despite my mother praying to Mary. Many have left Islam putting their own lives at risk. I would like to think I would also the courage. So what is the point of your question. Aiden you push the lie that Christians and Moslems worship the same God. Ask any Muslim if they worship the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ or the God of Israel and your false dogma is exposed.

Religion is always portrayed as peaceful yet no other organisation divides humans more than religion.
Religion is like alcohol or drugs, if you refrain fom it all is well.

Dear runner,

The God of Israel is not the God that Christians worship. The statement of faith of the Jews is, "Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one."

That's it. No Trinity. No other divine figure. Christians do not worship the God of Israel.

That's fine with me. Christians can worship whoever they want, but they do not worship the God of Israel.

Off topic a little, but not too much, there is a Christian community near me that holds a huge medieval festival each year. On their billboard they say "come and see over 500,000 years of human history".

I thought, hang on, don't they believe in creation? If so, how can this be? More curious than anything.

BTW, I think Trump is making headway and the tall poppies can't accept that.

runner: Ask any Muslim if they worship the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ or the God of Israel and your false dogma is exposed.

No, you are wrong there. Islam Is one of the three Abrahamic Religions. Jews, Christians & Moslems. They all have the one God in common.

David F: Christians can worship whoever they want, but they do not worship the God of Israel.

Yes they do. God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Ghost. A Trinity of one God. That bit is taken from the Old Hindu Philosophy as in the Veda's.

rechub: BTW, I think Trump is making headway and the tall poppies can't accept that.

I tend to agree. We will see the Liberal Rhetoric ramp up in the coming months. Already there have been calls by some Liberal sections for armed insurrection. (from a group that doesn't like guns ?) Strange.

Dear runner,

The virgin birth prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 is a mistranslation. It came about because the Vulgate translation of Hebrew into Greek translated the Hebrew, almah which means young woman, into parthenos which means virgin. This was possibly done to make Jesus like the many pagan gods which were born of virgins.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1561/pg1561.txt

“The old Teutonic goddess Hertha (the Earth) was a Virgin, but was impregnated by the heavenly Spirit (the Sky); and her image with a child in her arms was to be seen in the sacred groves of Germany. (1) The Scandinavian Frigga, in much the same way, being caught in the embraces of Odin, the All-father, conceived and bore a son, the blessed Balder, healer and saviour of mankind. Quetzalcoatl, the (crucified) saviour of the Aztecs, was the son of Chimalman, the Virgin Queen of Heaven. (2) Even the Chinese had a mother-goddess and virgin with child in her arms (3); and the ancient Etruscans the same.”

Carpenter gives many other examples.

There is no prophesy of a virgin birth in the original Hebrew
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/7-14.htm

King James Bible

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jewish Publication Society (JPS)

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Almah is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married. It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether she is a virgin, for which a different Hebrew word betulah is used.

There are 26 versions in English in biblehub. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) and 2 Christian versions translate the Hebrew properly as young woman. The others mistranslate it as virgin.

Judaism is a monotheistic religion worshipping one God, not a Trinity, and the virgin birth has no place in Judaism. Christians do not worship the God of Israel.

Jayb You are mistaken again. Islam completely rejects the God of Israel and the God of the bible. Islam denies the death of Jesus Christ on a cross believing it was Judas who was crucified. The examples of Jesus Christ and Mohammed could not be further apart. In short you speak regurgitated academia dogma. The Koran has almost nothing in common with the holy Scriptures. The God of Israel has nothing in common with the god of Islam.

Dear Rehctub,

Regarding the off-topic bit, according to the bible, humans were created earlier, in Genesis 1 (sixth day), whereas Adam and Eve were created separately in Genesis 2 (this also explains how Adam and Eve's sons could find wives). The traditional count of 5778 years, based on the ancestors' lifespan, is since Adam, not since creation and the bible does not state how long after creation was Adam made.

Thus, even according to strict creationism, the world could be as old as the human race, perhaps 2 million year old...

David f If Jesus was not born of a virgin he would of been born corrupt like you and mean. Mathew 1:25 records the fact that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. You really should get your facts right. By all means you have the right to disbelieve but get your facts right.

Dear runner,

I have my facts right. The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is absolute nonsense. The Bible is not a factual document. I have a daughter. She is married and has two children. If she had been pregnant before she was married and had told me she was a virgin I would not have believed her. The Jesus in the Bible is a creature of myth. Mary conceived because some man had sex with her – possibly somebody other than Joseph.

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

“Most scholars believe [the Gospel of Matthew] was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view). The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[4] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on three main sources: the Gospel of Mark, the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".

Judaism is much closer to Islam it is to Christianity. Their dietary laws are similar. Important figures in Judaism are capable of bad behavior like Mohammed. Moses killed an Egyptian. He was a man of violence who could not control his temper. Therefor, he could not enter the Promised Land. King David got Uriah killed so he could take his wife. That was as bad as anything Mohammed did.

Christianity has the myth of a perfect man. The miracles that Jesus performed are fairy tales not reality.

King David, Mohammed and Moses are probably partially creatures of myth also, but they behave like real human beings who are capable of both good and evil.

//Indian man Bussa Krishna has spent the past three years worshipping Trump as a God,//
So, he has given up worshipping his Sacred Cow, just no pleasing some people.

Yuyutsu, thanks for clearing that up, I often wondered.

//The God of Israel has nothing in common with the god of Islam.// There is no need to wonder how wars start, when we have millions believing this religious nonsense. My god is better than your god, and I'll give a bloody nose to anyone who doesn't agree.

//Thus, even according to strict creationism, the world could be as old as the human race, perhaps 2 million year old...//
Really! Science reports the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. and they have evidence to support their finding, not something from a book of fairy tales.

runner: Jayb You are mistaken again.

No I'm not.

runner: Islam completely rejects the God of Israel and the God of the bible.

No it doesn't. They are one & the same. Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions.

runner: Islam denies the death of Jesus Christ on a cross believing it was Judas who was crucified.

Maybe so. They don't believe Yeshua ha-Notzri is a God. That's all.

runner: The examples of Jesus Christ and Mohammed could not be further apart.

True.

runner: In short you speak regurgitated academia dogma.

No I'm not.

runner: The Koran has almost nothing in common with the holy Scriptures.

One would hope not.

runner: The God of Israel has nothing in common with the god of Islam.

The Christian, "God the Father" is one & the same for all three of the Monotheistic Religions.

'The Christian, "God the Father" is one & the same for all three of the Monotheistic Religions.'

Jayb

again ask any muslim if God is their Father. You will find you have swallowed the dogma hook line and sinker.

runner: again ask any muslim if God is their Father

Ok, let me put it this way.

Judaism belief: God.
Christianity: God. (Expressed as God the Father because of the Trinity)
Islam belief: God.

You SDA's & JW's are hard to through too.

Lets see;

Seventh Day Adventists;
Ellen G White. 1863,
Started by a Mentally I Woman who saw Mary & petitioned the Vatican to make her a Living Saint. The Vatican denied her so be joined the Millerites. She was considered too crazy for the Millerites so they tossed her out. So, she started her own Church. The Seven Day Adventists.

Jehovah Wittiness;
Charles Taze Russell, 1870s.
Based on 1st. Century Arianism which was outlawed by the success of Pauline Christianity in the 4th. Century.

All my own research

If it was not Donald Trump who was being “worshiped”, I doubt the this thread would have materialised. The person doing the worshiping is obviously insane, because only God can be worshiped by those who believe in Him; and there are non-Christians who play about with idols. Human beings - no.

But there are people with not much to say - like talentless ‘comedians’ who think ‘effing’ everything makes them funny - who shout Trump! to get attention.

runner your lack of understanding is a huge concern,yes all three came from one tree, each had a different track to follow but in the end the same Father God,Christ was the Son of the Father.understanding, not always seen in some who comment with such passion,, that hopefully will remind some who have felt your often harsh insults in the future

Dear Ttbn,

«there are non-Christians who play about with idols. Human beings - no.»

In Hinduism, anything and anyone which/who best symbolises God for a person can be worshipped. Although some uneducated villagers might fail to understand this, we, educated Hindus, do realise that the one actually being worshipped is God rather than His representation. Most commonly worshipped are human (but not only human) incarnations of God such as Rama and Krishna, along with many other historical human saints.

Trump is obviously no saint, but what matters most is that Mr. Bussa Krishna BELIEVES that he is (assuming he really does), so when Bussa looks at Trump's photo, he actually directs his loving energy to God, the one and only.

Jayb

you have written nothing in your last post I can't agree with. It however by no means proves that Islam originated from Abraham. Its like saying atheism originated from Adam because he was the first man. Any investigation will show you that Allah though can be translated God refers to the moon god of the ancient Arabs. The moon crescent and practices of Islam are very consistent to the worship of this moon god. Besides quoting academia dogma you along with Belly have provided no evidence of Islam coming from Abraham. Strangley enough Mohammed never visited Jerusalem except supposedly while asleep by the angel Gabriel. Islam and god deniers ultimately serve the same god and it ain't Jehovah.

runner the world knows Islam came via Abraham, best get out of the hole you are digging for your self

' runner the world knows Islam came via Abraham, best get out of the hole you are digging for your self'

you mean the same ones who deny their Lord and Saviour! I am happy not to be in that company Belly. Just look at the fairytales they make up for the origins of the earth Belly. Quite pathetic really. And they call themselves rationalist.

runner: Just look at the fairytales they make up for the origins of the earth Belly. Quite pathetic really

What? you mean the Earth is really flat & is only 6004 years & 5 days old, as calculated by (Catholic) Archbishop James Ussher? Would you believe anything a Catholic says?

Oh, wait a minute that was 1658. Therefore it's 6364 years & 5 days old now. Ay.

I recently read an opinion that it was insulting to Christians to call Islam an Abrahamic religion when it is not even a religion at all, but a cult.

I don't know whether or not this is true, but when it comes to religion I will back runner against Belly any day.

To me it is more reasonable to worship a human than a god. Humans exist. Gods don't.

It is even more reasonable not to worship anything, but to think our way through our problems.

runner: Besides quoting academia dogma you along with Belly have provided no evidence of Islam coming from Abraham. Strangely enough Mohammed never visited Jerusalem except supposedly while asleep by the angel Gabriel.

Moslems believe their Religion originates from the God of Abraham. They even have the same Angels (Gabriel) who surround the Jewish & Christian God.

By the way, Wasn't King Ahab that standardised all the old Hebrew/Canaanite/local Gods into one during his reign, Jehovah. The old Abrahamic name for God was "EL" or "AL" depending on the local dialect. Therefore "AL-LAH" in Arabic. Another by the way, The Moon God isn't. She was a Moon Goddess & was a local Arab fertility Goddess.

Similar Goddesses abound;

Sumerian;
Sadarnuna, Sarpandit.
Indian;
Condi, Gwadar.
Chinese;
Chang-O.
Tibetan;
Lasya.
Babylonian;
Ishtar, Anunit.
Persian;
Anahita.
Early Greek;
Andrommeda.
Greek;
Aega, Artimis, Demeter, Selene.
Crete;
Britamarties.
Roman;
Diana, Luna.
Etruscan;
Zirna.
Celtic;
Aine, Arianhod, Cerriduern.
Sth. Ametican;
Aichualgan.
Christian;
Mary.
Arab;
Al-At, Al-Uzza, Man-At.

runner,
>Ask any Muslim if they worship the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ or the God of Israel and your false dogma is exposed.

Though Muslims, like Jews, generally don't recognise Jesus as the Christ, nor the son of God (and certainly not God incarnate) they do worship the God of Jesus. Learned Muslims would certainly recognise they worship the God of Israel, though ignorant ones may doubt it due to anti Jewish propaganda.

The hypothesis that "Allah" referred to the moon god of the ancient Arabs is well known, but there seems to be more evidence against it than for. There's no archeological evidence of Islamic use of the crescent symbol before the Ottomans. Arab Christians called God "Allah" in preIslamic times. And the name of that ancient moon god was Sîn. So if there is a connection it's a weak one. At most it's possible that the Arabic phrase for "the moon god" was sufficiently similar to "Allah" that some people thought they were the same, but that's hardly a major factor in Islam's development, and it's not as if Christianity was immune from pagan influence either.

There is much wrong with Islam, with Mohammed himself being both the reported and logical source of the corruption. But it means Muslims generally have a poorer understanding of what God wants than Christians do; NOT that they don't worship the same God.

Hi Jayb

'By the way, Wasn't King Ahab that standardised all the old Hebrew/Canaanite/local Gods into one during his reign, Jehovah'

King Ahab under the influence of his wife Jezebel encouraged the worship of Baal. Elijah the prophet ordered the destruction of these prophets and all the other worshippers of Baal because it was idolatry. The Jews never considered Jehovah and Baal as the same God. They did in times of idolatry worship Baal. Again the crescent might just give you a clue. It is why Ahab was described as one of Israel's most wicked kings. Now Baal and Allah and the relationship I will allow you to use your investigate skills.

'Many believe the word “Allah” was derived from the mid- eastern word “el” which in Ugaritic, Caananite and Hebrew can mean a true or false God. This is not the case, “The source of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity.” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. Hastings), I:326.)'

Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods? (Gen 14:22, 17:1, 21:33; Ex 6:2-3; Ps 82:1 vs Deut 32:8-9; Ps 29:1, 89:6-8)

Contrary to these biblical traditions that suggest an assimilation between Yahweh and El, there are other passages that seem to indicate that Yahweh was a separate and independent deity within El’s council. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities: Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.

When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

There are two points to take away from this passage. First, the passage presents an apparently older mythic theme that describes when the divine beings, that is each deity in the divine counsel, were assigned and allotted their own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received. Second, Yahweh received his divine portion, Israel, through an action initiated by the god El, here identifiable through his epithet “the Most High.” In other words, the passage depicts two gods: one, the Most High (El), is seen as assigning nations to the divine beings or gods (the Hebrew word is elohim, plural “gods”) in his council; the other, Yahweh, is depicted as receiving from the first god, the Most High, his particular allotment, namely the people of Israel. Similarly, in another older tradition now preserved in Numbers 21:29, the god Chemosh is assigned to the people of Moab.

cont

cint

Other biblical passages reaffirm this archaic view of Yahweh as a god in El’s council. Psalm 82:1 speaks of the “assembly of El,” Psalm 29:1 enjoins “the sons of El” to worship Yahweh, and Psalm 89:6-7 lists Yahweh among El’s divine council.

Thus there seems to be ample evidence in the biblical record to support the claim that as Yahweh become the supreme national deity of the Israelites, he began to usurp the imagery, epithets, and old cultic centers of the god El. This process of assimilation even morphed the linguistic meaning of the name El, which later came to mean simply “god,” so that Yahweh was then directly identified as ’el—thus Joshua 22:22: “the god of gods is Yahweh” (’el ’elohim yhwh).

Not tied up with the freemasons are you Jayb or is it a secret?

Baal was so evil a deity that to find the name of the one, true, holy God, Jehovah, linked with Baal and On in the rites of Masonry is blasphemous. God says, "Those who honor Me, I will honor" (1 Samuel 2:30). The Apostle Paul writes, "To Him [God] be honor and eternal dominion" (1 Timothy 6:16). If you are a Christian, according to Scripture is it honoring to God to participate in a rite that maligns His divine name by combining it with the names of evil gods? Didn't God's severe judgment fall upon Israel because she combined worship of Jehovah with the worship of Baal and other pagan gods? Didn't God's judgment fall because of teachings like those found in Masonry? As former Past Master Mason Edmund Ronayne confesses: "The very religious philosophy and false worship which caused Jehovah to destroy His own temple, and banish into captivity His ancient people, are precisely the same philosophy and worship with modern Masons profess shall fit them for the glories of heaven" [15]

There appears to be only one true God, money ! That assumption comes from judging by the hypocisy so openly displayed by religious people.

There are reasons I think are good ones I did not use this thread to push my non-believer position.we can all, those who share my view, find much to say in another place I would, in fact think this world needs to talk about this, however we tend to get a bit heated on any subject my once commitment to the side I now confront reminds me most who believe want a better kinder world, that much I too still share
it is those who use their faith as a club we all must confront.

runner: Not tied up with the freemasons are you Jayb or is it a secret?

No. But my grandfather was in the Scottish rite "Order of St. Michael." what ever that means. Mum had all his paraphernalia, very interesting.

Not tied up with the Jehovah Witnesses are you runner. Eeerr…. that's no secret. Ay.

The Local Witnesses actually send their newbies around to me for training. Poor Ba$t@rd$. When they run away I follow them down the street preaching the truth. ;-)

Jaybe they love being told to leave fast, finally got it in to their heads to stay away

G'day there JAYB...

I can only hope you're not casting aspersions upon Freemasonry or Freemasons JAYB; I've been a member for 47 years or so? A very good organisation who do good works for charity and other worthy causes? Happy to discuss it, if you have any problems with it? And you should be aware many members of the three Armed Services belong to Masonic Lodges.

Oh to remain on topic - Freemasonry is NOT a religion. Nor do Freemasons worship any particular religion, creed, or other religious orders, or organisations.

Hi Jayb No I am not a JW. They are a false cult who twist the Scriptures and have their own translation of the bible as you seem to know. You also know JW's don't vote.

O sung Wu There is no denying that many freemasons do many great works and are some of the nicest people going around. Some Muslims especially from places like Indonesia are lovely people. The Christian faith has been examined, criticised, or believed upon by some. Christ either rose from the dead and spoke the truth or it's all garbage as most on ill and probably in Ausie believe. If freemasonry is based on the truth then you should be secure in it and its teachings. I happen to believe it denies Jesus Christ as the Risen Lord and the only way to salvation.

OSW: I can only hope you're not casting aspersions upon Freemasonry or Freemasons.

Not at all. My own Grandfather was a Freemason. I believe the "Order of St. Michael" is reasonably high up. He certainly had a lot of paraphernalia on his Apron. Mind you, in the Burdekin you couldn't get a job in the Sugar Mills unless you were a Mason. The Temple in Ayr, Nth. Qld. is Huge.

runner: then a 7DA, possibly. I went to a "Get ya head together" TAFE Course in Beauy when I first got here. (PTSD) Mainly to get to know some of the locals. It turns out the Instructor was a 7DA Skypilot who turned the Course into a recruiting Campaign. He said the only way to get your head together was to read the Bible anything else was rubbish. Suddenly the Course was starting & ending with a Prayer & we were referring to the Bible all the time. I referred him to the TAFE Administration along with his Course Material. He got the sack & came around & abused me.

Hi there RUNNER & JAYB...

RUNNER my friend, I've always supported much of what you've said here, on the Forum. And I can assure you categorically, there nothing in Freemasonry that will conflict with either your religious nor your moral convictions.

G'day there JAYB...

You might be interested to know, modern Freemasonry actually commenced in Scotland in the early 1720's or 30's. Whereas the recorded history of Masonic existence, goes back to the times of the building of King Solomon's Temple. Masons were always highly valued and prized artisan's, so much so they had a unique system of secret signs, tokens and words that would allow them to travel all the lands (of those times) virtually unhindered and untouched. It came to pass; the Kings & Queens of those times conveyed upon these Masons, the title of 'Free' to their moniker. The full & 'correct' title of a Mason is; including the **spelling** 'Antient and Accepted 'Freemason'.

Moreover JAYB, I believe the 'Order of Saint Michael' is one of a Masonic assemblage, rather than a specific degree. Myself I've gone through the Blue up into the Red Lodge. Most Freemasons are more than content to remain in the Craft Lodge (the Blue Lodge), where there's much work to be done. I entered the Red Lodge through encouragement, which is an entirely different Lodge altogether - all part of Freemasonry nevertheless. Hope this helps JAYB & RUNNER.

Jayb and o sung su No I am not a sda. Simply put I am a Christian believing that you can only be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Whether you attend a Baptist church, Church of Christ, independent church or some Pentecostal churches I believe it makes little difference as long as they adhere to the essential teaching of Scripture. We could argue all day long about what these essentials are. I believe they are: 1. Man is sinful and needs a Saviour 2. Jesus Christ is that Saviour 3. Jesus Christ is the only way to God 4. Jesus Christ is divine and always existed with His Father 5. Jesus was crucified, resurrected and lives forever more 6. Jesus Christ will return next time as judge 7. All things were created through Jesus Christ. Big bang is nonsense. 8. All Scripture is inspired by God 9.In one sense Christianity is a relationship. With God rather than a religion. I know anyone of these points and many more could create endless discussion. You can post endless internet posts so I have tried to summarize my points. W

Have a stack of photos taken at NSW HQ of the Masons, they run conferences there these days, and as the NSW department I worked for has many they held meetings there often you had to be one or not get a job in the country town of my birth, still uninterested as a result of that

Hi (again) RUNNER...

I will always respect everyone's religion; save for Islam, purely for the hate and violence they purport to support against infidels. Surely you'd agree with me RUNNER?

Hi there BELLY...

They do give and host many fraternal activities out of their Sydney HQ. Your claim, that in order to get hired in a particular job you needed to be a Mason, I find suspect BELLY. I suggest you may well be mixed up somewhat. I'll admit there's much in the way of folklore emanating in and around Freemasonry, which is all a bit sad really.

Hi again o sung Wu. I think all people deserve respect because they are made in the image of God. Much racism and hate was directed at the aboriginals because some evolutionist thought they were the missing link. Also many Hindus have died of hunger due to believing cows are sacred. Yes all people deserve respect but I am not sure all belief systems do. Earth worshippers rename babies foetus in order to kill them without guilt. Jesus speaking of former and later prophets said all that went before thieves and robbers and all after Him were the same. Yeah all people deserve respect simply because they were made in God's image. All belief systems are not equal. Certainly a huge number in this country have no respect for Christ Jesus the Lord.

runner: I believe they are: 1. Man is sinful and needs a Saviour 2. Jesus Christ is that Saviour 3. Jesus Christ is the only way to God 4. Jesus Christ is divine and always existed with His Father 5. Jesus was crucified, resurrected and lives forever more 6. Jesus Christ will return next time as judge 7. All things were created through Jesus Christ. Big bang is nonsense. 8. All Scripture is inspired by God 9.In one sense Christianity is a relationship. With God rather than a religion.

As the Rockman said to little Oblio, "You sees what you wanta sees & you hears what you wanta hears." Then, with that, he went back to sleep.

OSW: Your claim, that in order to get hired in a particular job you needed to be a Mason.

It was well known in Ayr that you had to be a Mason to get a Job at, well, Kalamia Mill, anyway.

Grandads Apron was a silver colour with real silver accoutrement's & tassels. I remember a little silver dagger, two birds, Set Square, ruler, a plumb bob thingie & a little silver purse that could open. The Sash was covered in silver baubles & silver twisty things like the gold ones on a Mess Dress. It was covered in badges,with a silver ribbon down the centre of it. A big Freemason symbol thing hung off the bottom of it.

Dear runner,

All people deserve respect because all people are human beings. No belief system that rests on unprovable assumptions including yours deserves respect.

Diarmaid MacCulloch, a Christian theologian wrote "A History of Christianity".

Two quotations from his book:

For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes. P. 4

I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species. P. 11

No JAYB...You're mistaken. You 'don't' need to be a Mason to obtain employment in a Freemason predominant environment. As I corrected when I posted to a our colleague BELLY. Believe it or not Freemasons don't have as much power as people think.

An illustration of the alleged power of Masons. In the mid 1930's in England, a man had just been convicted of a murder. And at that time capital punishment was still in vogue. Just at the point of sentencing this bloke, the Judge asked him if he had anything to say before he passed sentence? The offender was a Mason, and he communicated that fact to the judge, using secret words and symbolic (secret) gestures.

The Judge himself was a Mason. He was handed the black kerchief by his associate that all judges wear over their wigs, just prior to rendering a sentence of death. He looked sadly at the condemned man and said '...I understand what you were trying to communicate to me. But you know as well as I do, we all must follow the Law of the Land in which we live...'.

Placing the black kerchief over his wig, the Judge continued '...it saddens me greatly that I have to condemn, one of our brethren to be hanged until dead, but I first have a duty to the laws of this land and the community who entrusts me with those laws - may God have mercy on your soul, take the prisoner down...'. The individual was hanged in Pentonville Prison some 16 months or so, later.

Freemasons possess no more, nor any less power, than anyone else living in the community. They're required to observe the same laws, conventions, or civil mandates as everyone in society, as they should - I hope this helps dispel much of the nonsense and folklore that has surrounded Masonry for years.

Yes David f and human beings are not animals otherwise your assumption fails miserably. You are given a free will to disrespect your Creator but to do so certainly is foolish. The puny fist of the clay denying the Potter. Just don't be dishonest enough to call it rational.

Dear runner,

It is not an assumption that your belief system is based on unprovable propositions. That is fact. You may believe what you will, but fact is fact. All human being are animals. They are vertebrates, mammals of the genius, homo and the species, sapiens. Puny fist is nonsense. I just don't share your superstition, and it remains superstition no matter how sincerely you believe it. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Jains, Muslims, Zoroastrians and others also believe their superstitions. You have a right to retain your superstition, but that's what it is. You probably do your job well and treat others well, but you are in the grip of superstition. Your superstition seems to make you neither tolerant of other beliefs nor happy. I hope you will be tolerant of other beliefs and happy.

runner,

I thought we sorted this one out a long time ago. Remember, you had to run and duck for cover when the lie that was your arguement was exposed.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7741#238090

Jayb is right. Christians and Muslims share the same god. You just get a bit pissy about this because you like to pretend that atheists are more like Muslims, without providing any reasoning whatsoever for such a dumb assertion.

The last two posts are in my view spot on,and for me at least add to my view faith can be ,well is a problem for all of humanity, do not get me wrong, my Christian days saw as it does for most, me thinking all men are equal and wanting a better world, IF we have to prove yet again, three faiths came from the one God in the middle east what do we say about SOME American Christians who too use their God just as badly as SOME Muslims do?

' I thought we sorted this one out a long time ago. Remember, you had to run and duck for cover when the lie that was your arguement was exposed.'

No AJ it is you who run from the Light choosing idiotic pseudo science as a disguise for intelligence.

' IF we have to prove yet again, three faiths came from the one God in the middle east what do we say about SOME American Christians who too use their God just as badly as SOME Muslims do?'

Probably the same thing as what those baby killers do in the name of no god Belly. Heard of Stalin, Hitler, Mao?

Dear runner,

You have used the expression, "shake your puny fists at God". I only get angry at what exists. My anger generally serves no useful purpose. I can either do something about the situation or not. However, I do not get angry at God, god or gods. I do not get angry at the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Zeus, God, Apollo, unicorns or other entities which do not exist. I am not angry at you. You probably are a decent person, and I hope you will become a happy person or at least a person better able to control his emotions. There is an ancient philosophy that may help.

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

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BC. It was heavily influenced by certain teachings of Socrates, while stoic physics are largely drawn from the teachings of the philosopher Heraclitus. Stoicism is predominantly a philosophy of personal ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world. According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to happiness for humans is found in accepting this moment as it presents itself, by not allowing ourselves to be controlled by our desire for pleasure or our fear of pain, by using our minds to understand the world around us and to do our part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.

Stoicism flourished throughout the Roman and Greek world until the 3rd century AD, and among its adherents was Emperor Marcus Aurelius. It experienced a decline after Christianity became the state religion in the 4th century AD. Since then it has seen revivals, notably in the Renaissance (Neostoicism) and in the modern era (modern Stoicism).

glad to hear you are not angry David f. How do you feel about President Trump? No anger? Just indifferent?

Dear runner,

I feel that Trump is unfit to be president, but I am not angry at him. My anger will not make him a better president or change the situation. I have been very angry during my life, but I have learned to control it. I am rid of most of my anger. According to Christianity the seven deadly sins are pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. They are all human emotions, and I think they are all harmful only in excess. I think it is not good to completely eliminate pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony and sloth, but I think it is possible to get rid of wrath. If one is bothered by injustice, meanness or other human flaws it is better to either do something about it or accept that one can do little about it. President Trump is a human being, and I hope he will be more conscious of the suffering of other human beings. I do not know that I would be any better than he is as a president. As one born in the United States I am eligible to be president.

OSW: I hope this helps dispel much of the nonsense and folklore that has surrounded Masonry for years.

I understand what you are saying. but much like the Army. There is Mill Law then there is "The System." I don't think is around as much to day as it was in the Past. Most people, with a few exceptions, don't let their belonging to a Religion or Society interfere with other peoples life anymore. One would hope not.

It was the same for being a Catholic, CofE or Protestant. Especially in the 50's.

Dear runner,

Speaking of President Trump:

http://fortune.com/2018/02/13/donald-trump-white-house-staff-turnover/

Trump has by far the highest turnover rate for any president in recent years.

Staff turnover rate for presidents in first year:

Trump 34%

Obama 9%

W. Bush 6%

Clinton 11%

Apparently he is hard to work with and finds it difficult to deal with any disagreement. Maybe he has a problem controlling his anger. I hope he does better in the future.

G'day there JAYB...

You're spot on my friend. There's Military Law & there's the system. The police force is very similar, most minor issues are settled in the back room of the local pub, as do recommendations for promotion. Is the system fair; absolutely if you're on the winning side, otherwise you tell me?

Hi there DAVID F...

Do you think perhaps Mr Trump is being true to his word and 'draining the swamp' of the useless and unproductive people he has, in the various key roles in the United States? Similar to the innumerable number of deadwood politicians we have here, in Australian Politics?

Should it turn out Trump has dementia, and it would explain a lot,how would his supporters take the news? blame Hillary? or as they are want to call any one left of the tea party leftists? It has always surprised me how some fall at the feet of those with the loudest voice, Trump ,powered by Hillary,s total unsuitability for the job, won an office he was never good enough to clean, it will take many to clean it after he is gone

Dear o sung wu,

The people leaving Trump's staff are all people he appointed. The president's staff is selected by the president. The great turnover of staff is not a 'draining of the swamp', but a failure of Trump to get along with people he appointed. In government, unlike his private affairs, he has appointed some highly qualified people.

Conscientious, highly qualified people will be likely to disagree with him on some issues. He apparently would be more comfortable associating with people who always agree with him. That makes them useless in case he makes a bad decision.

He appears to get along well with dictators or authoritarian figures like Kim il Sung, Duterte or Putin. He alienates allies like Trudeau, Macron or Merkel. One area in which I think Obama was good was his environmental regulations. Trunp has appointed Pruitt who is a swamp creature as administrator of the EPA:

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

Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor to climate change.

By May 2018, Pruitt was under at least 12 separate investigations by the Government Accountability Office, the E.P.A. inspector general, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, and two House committees over his spending habits, conflicts of interests, extreme secrecy, and management practices. Pruitt made frequent use of first class travel as well as frequent charter and military flights. As EPA administrator, Pruitt leased a condo in Washington D.C. at a deeply discounted rate from a lobbyist whose clients were regulated by the EPA. Pruitt further caused ethics concerns by circumventing the White House and using a narrow provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act to autonomously give raises to his two closest aides of approximately $28,000 and $57,000 each, which were substantially higher than salaries paid to those in similar positions in the Obama administration, and which allowed both to avoid signing conflicts of interest pledges. By June 2018, amid a steady succession of revelations of misconduct, a growing chorus of conservatives had begun suggesting that Pruitt should resign.

Draining a swamp?

Trumps America is a poorly scripted B grade movie with third grade actors being lead by a man who is blinded to truth by his own ego

Dear Belly,

James Comey in his book talks about the US President-
Trump and the picture he paints is horrific. The US President
sees women as pieces of meat, lies constantly,
about matters big and small. And he's morally unfit
to be the US President. It will take years
to fix the problems this man is creating.

Unfit morally to be US President. Suddenly Foxy you believe personal philosophy determines public performance. You seemed to take offence when media and others digged into Julia's personal and past life. Hmmm! For decades regressives argued personal lives have no impact on one's ability to fill a role. Seems like another dogma not really believed unless its one of your own. I think the fact that he puts America first and is defunding planned parenthood is very courageous. Yes he has many character floors like you and me but his policies are spot on. The deplorables base is growing. Whether its enough to get rejected or not we will have to wait and see. He is certainly a breath of fresh air. No pun intended.

The more the hangers-on brigade tries to denounce Trump the more they expose their hypocrisy & outright fear of the possibility of having their irrelevance put on display. I have yet to hear someone who actually works in a community building enterprise to denounce the present POTUS.

Dear runner,

You really are a shocker aren't you. According to Pew research about 87% of the Religious right thought you couldn't be a good leader if you weren't a morally upstanding person. Now that sentiment is in the low 20s.

You and your lot have so completely changed your minds on a thrice married, philandering, pornstar bonking president that it makes my head spin.

You have pissed any credibility up against the wall.

You have no moral authority to be lecturing anyone. Time to just knick off.

Great tantrum Steele. I would suggest that people like you are what caused the deplorables to vote for Trump. The swamp certainly needs draining. Their has been a good start.

Dear runner,

Hardly a tantrum old chap, just stating the blinking obvious.

You wrote;

“The swamp certainly needs draining. Their(sic) has been a good start.”

Name a single bit of swamp draining Trump has done. Rather he has set about filling it to over flowing.

Hi there A.J. PHILLIPS...

I notice you've not been as active on 'The Forum' as you usually are? I seem to recall through the cloudy vestiges of my memory, that after you've successfully completed your Dip. of Criminology, you were considering embarking upon your LL.B. After all you would've gained a few credits through your Dip.Crim thus shortening your degree somewhat. After spending hours in the Law Library, teasing out some precedent for an assignment, does not encourage many to then come on here and argue some mundane topic. If it was a structured moot OK, but it's not.

Best of luck to you, as your wade incessantly though the dryer topics of Tort, Contract, & Constitutional subjects. And as a piece of unsolicited advice; after you obtain your practicing certificate or whatever they call it in QLD; try to avoid criminal law. You know as well as I...you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

runner never ever stops amazing me, every pro Trump statement may well have come directly from a Russian troll and avoided truth every inch of the way

Dear Belly,

Runner could well be a Russian troll. It would
explain a great deal.

After all he so strongly and vehmently supports a
thrice-married, pussy-grabbing, pornster bonking,
prostitute peeing, US President lies through his
teeth and - who loves Putin.
And runner can't see why the US President is
morally unfit to be President?

" I've never had sex with that woman " So says Mr Wm. CLINTON popular Democratic President and moral guardian of the United States of America - apropos White House Intern, Ms Monica LEWINSKI. And you FOXY claim, President TRUMP is morally unfit to be President? They're all the same, wilfully purjured individuals, every last one of them!

o sung wo!as an ex cop you may well have seen some dreadful things, doubt however you did not give the woman a fair hearing in such matters? Clintons action was foul, Trump? well he is far less than a man, the world is unimpressed with him as am I one being wrong, in no way, lets the other off the hook, or do you think it does?runner can you get your hands on one of those Russian dolls for me?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Bill Clinton did not regard oral sex as having sex.
Monica Lewinsky performed oral sex on the former
US President. Just thought you should know.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote, "They're all the same, wilfully purjured individuals, every last one of them!"

That's like saying all cops are bent. Academics, politicians, leftists, rightists, gun-owners, anti-gun owners almost any group you can name gets demonised on olo. Regardless of which group a person belongs to, every individual belonging to the group is not the same. I'm pretty sure you know that.

Hi there FOXY...

I was aware of what happened between the young female Intern and President CLINTON. The fact it was oral sex means naught. The fact remains, the most powerful individual in the western world, took advantage of a young impressionable Intern. And when questioned later, dodged and weaved his way out of it, by some inane technical interpretation of what 'sex' constituted?

However, after spending many years in a job where trying to unravel and tease out the truth, can become a somewhat complicated affair. Therefore I do realise it takes, 'two hands to clap'? I've no doubt whatsoever, this young lady was effectively exercising her feminine guile on this 'naively enthusiastic' President, to some full measure. Known as the 'Honey Trap' or the 'Vertical Smile'. And in turn he was tacitly offering some inducement in an effort to attract her, eg smashing through the glass ceiling? Why the Bureau didn't charge this man...well who knows. Conversely, why the Bureau didn't charge Mr Trump is also another mystery, considering the amount of 'product' they had on him as well?

Hi there DAVID F...

Golly you've got me again. Would it help if I claimed the 5th? Probably not, you'd have some way of getting around it. Would you accept insanity eg McNAGHTEN's Rule perhaps? Seriously it was merely a 'throw away line'. Though it's not too much of a stretch to claim, many of our elected representatives, do little to earn their salaries, let alone our trust for that matter. Thank you DAVID F, you're very much my moral conscience, whether you believe it or not? Thank you.

Our thoughts and opinions about Donald Trump will be measured right or wrong by history, that test starts in the mid term elections to come, this world, all of it, can not avoid a truth fear honestly held, baseless or not, of migration and refugees, is driving and will continue to drive, right looking parties,in time to come the wanted out come, by those truly in power, may be a one world type world, much pain is to come before that,I hope for more aid, used better,less dictator rulers in power because they serve others interests, will let humanity live a life worth living in the country the are from, but till then SOME of us forget humans come in all sizes and colors

Dear Belly,

You wrote:

“Our thoughts and opinions about Donald Trump will be measured right or wrong by history, that test starts in the mid term elections to come.”

What is right or wrong is decided neither by history nor by voting. If Germany and Japan had won WW2 that would have made them right in the minds of many Germans and Japanese but not in my mind. As far as I am concerned the darkest day in history was the day Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Possibly, most people would disagree with that.

Voting decides what people prefer at a particular time not what is right or wrong. Here is what Henry Thoreau said about voting:

"All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting _for the right_ is _doing_ nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. _They_ will then be the only slaves. Only _his_ vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote."

Foxy,

Seconds or minutes after your last breath, is this what you will tell God?

<<There are many religions in the world.
Not just yours. And with all due respect.
all of the members of these religions are
like convinced that theirs is the one true
faith and that all others are misguided,
superstitious, even wicked.

<<We like other empirical sciences such as
economics, or chemistry, are not simply
competent to investigate the supernatural
or play umpire between competing faiths>>.

He will tell you:

<<But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God>> (Romans 1:18-19).

You will be without excuse before Him on that Day.

Would you question Google for the algorithms it uses for its massively successful search engine? Or would you say to Google, 'There are many algorithms out there and you ought to be using them. The developers of many algorithms in the world are convinced theirs is the best and true one. Google, yours must be misguided and not the true algorithm'.

I think I know what Google would say. And a like assessment will be made by the One, true Almighty God seconds after your last breath. He will add: 'Each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment' (Hebrews 9:27).

Foxy,

<<What about those who are not Christians?
The Bible has not meaning for them.>>

That's too bad because it is in the Bible that we receive a true assessment of what happens when people reject God and the Bible:

<<But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness (Romans 1:18)>>

Then God goes on to state that ALL people know of the existence and power of God by seeing His creation.

That makes them WITHOUT EXCUSE before God.

They can claim the Bible has no meaning for them but that doesn't place them outside of God's assessment of their lives.

If any can look at the created world (in spite of the deluge of evolutionary teaching) and not acknowledge the Creator who created the creation, they are blind.

God's assessment is they are without excuse before him - even if they don't know or spurn the Bible.

Dear OzSpen,

God being Almighty, All Knowing, and All Powerful
won't need me to tell Him anything. All will be
revealed instantaneously in crystal clarity
without need of that mortal concept of speech,
of question, and answer.

Foxy,

<<God being Almighty, All Knowing, and All Powerful
won't need me to tell Him anything.>>

About which God are you speaking? YHWH/Theos, Allah or some other God?

Dear OzSpen,

About which God am I speaking?

The one you said will meet me seconds or minutes
after my last breath.

I would never tell God any thing, however I would ask these things, why God did you let so many other Gods exist? and if the people of your birth the Jewish faith are your chosen people are there any of us who are the opposite? are all humans equal or are some here only to give us some one to hate?

Belly,

<<I would never tell God any thing, however I would ask these things, why God did you let so many other Gods exist?>>

He has already given the answer to this question in Scripture:

According to Genesis 2, the Lord God commanded Adam, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die”. What did Adam (& Eve) do? They disobeyed God and sin entered the human race.
This human sin gave all people the opportunity to worship other gods. Even the chosen nation of the Israelites practised idolatry: Exodus 32 tells how Aaron made an idol, golden calf for the people to worship while Moses was on the mountain.These Israelites became stubborn and rebellious when they chose to turn away from the Lord God to worship an idol.

<<if the people of your birth the Jewish faith are your chosen people are there any of us who are the opposite?>>

I'm an Aussie, a non-Jew, a Gentile. When the Gospel was proclaimed after Jesus' death and resurrection, it went first to the Jews (Jesus and the apostle Paul were Jews) - Acts 3:26 - and then to the non-Jews (Acts19:8-10).

<< are all humans equal or are some here only to give us some one to hate?>>

With the coming of Jesus, barriers of inequality were broken down: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

There is this further biblical emphasis to confirm equality between Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles): "For he himself [Jesus Christ] is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14).

The challenge for us as Christians is living out what Scripture teaches we ought to be in practising equality.

'Equality' has adopted another meaning in the contemporary, politically correct debate.

Dear OzSpen,

Not everyone believes that what is written in the Bible
is the literal word of God. After all The Bible was
written by men and it's their interpretations that are
recorded. Therefore can you really claim that it is
what God stated? Isn't it just what you happen to believe?
Therefore you are not in any position to preach to any one
else. You are merely preaching your interpretations and
beliefs. Other people have their own and don't need you
to educate them.

oz Spen please know once I was just as committed as you seem to be, I was wrong, in real life I would walk quickly away from you, long for the day humanity will no longer hate kill murder followers of another God in their Gods name

Nice try, Foxy! Not one line of your response had anything to do with the content of what I wrote.

So, you committed a red herring logical fallacy. It is faulty reasoning because you attempted to redirect my argument to your doubting Thomas views about the Bible, God and interpretation. This is a deliberate diversion from my topic.

When you engage in the use of a logical fallacy, this flaw in reasoning undermines the validity of your arguments. It makes it impossible to have a productive conversation.

I could provide an answer to all of your questions and assertions, but that wouldn't address the content of my post, to which you replied.

You have given me a few of your anti-Bible presuppositions in your post. Why don't you use a few of these in an article for Online Opinion? Slam dunk God, the Bible and interpretation.

Then we can have a discussion that is related to your topic.

Belly,

<<oz Spen please know once I was just as committed as you seem to be, I was wrong, in real life I would walk quickly away from you, long for the day humanity will no longer hate kill murder followers of another God in their Gods name>>

Are you accusing me of having this world and life view to hate, kill and murder followers of another god, all in the name of the Lord God Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit?

What motivates you to write this in response to my post?

OxSpen,

On the contrary - it was you were gave the Bible references.
I merely stated what many theologians have stated. And yet
you took that as an attack of some sort on the Bible. It
wasn't at all and what I personally believe or do not
believe you have no way of knowing therefore your assumptions
are not correct. But I agree that a rational, well reasoned
intelligent discussion with you it seems would be pointless.

Cheers.

Foxy,

Again you've not dealt with the content of what I wrote about your use of a red herring fallacy against me.

We cannot have a rational discussion when you continue to use this logical fallacy. It is your flawed reasoning that is contributing to this.

Dear Belly,

«why God did you let so many other Gods exist?»

Which ones for example?

Suppose there were two (or more) Gods, then each would limit the other. Could any sane person consider a limited being to be God?

«and if the people of your birth the Jewish faith are your chosen people are there any of us who are the opposite? are all humans equal or are some here only to give us some one to hate?»

Everyone is chosen to play their part. No two humans are equal because no two humans play the same part.

Yuytsu long ago learned it is not worth debating this subject humanity as it has with the way we speak developed many different Gods, three from this tree your God comes from,best back out not because of fear but an unwillingness to offend

Belly,

<<as it has with the way we speak developed many different Gods, three from this tree your God comes from.>>

From where did you get the idea that 'your God' is one of three that came from 'this tree'?

OzSpen: When the Gospel was proclaimed after Jesus' death and resurrection,

I think you better do some reading up on History. The Gospels weren't written until about 100 years after the death of Yeshua (Jesus) None of the people who wrote the Gospels had any direct contact with Yeshua.

The Epistles were written by the Apostles. They had direct contact with Yeshua. Except for Paul, who the Apostles kicked him out of their little Club. Paul then went on to establish his own brand of Christianity. The one followed today.

All the branches of Christianity established by the Apostles were eliminated by the Pauline branch after the Nicene Council by the Pauline Bishops.

I guess you gotta be a Southern Baptist, Ay.

OzSpen,

Could you be a tad more specific.

Exactly what red-herring fallacy are you referring
to that I provided?

Or are you stating that your quotes from the Bible
are a red herring fallacy?

Three? the God of the Jews, the Islamic God, and Christ, who was his own father, all came from one, maybe Baal was an earlier incarnation?do we need to name all of the thousands of Gods we invented?or do we go on blissfully claiming only one of them ever existed, dare I say not one ever did?

Dear Belly,

The deities which you mentioned are just gods with a small-'g'.
Most were probably invented by humans, nothing wrong with that, though Christ and others did exist in history.

Then you answered me: «three from this tree your God comes from»

God could not come from anywhere because God is not a thing, unlike the deities you mentioned. One could argue whether or not those deities, those gods with a small-'g' exist and where they came from, but only things, only objects can exist and God is not an object. God doesn't even exist, yet there is nothing besides Him including existence itself.

Yuytsu pointless continuing here 6 days to make the world? Jona in that whale? what a shame God took day seven off, he may well have used that day to stop humanity finding reason to hate each other

Dear Belly,

The whole point of Genesis 1 are the first 3 verses of Genesis 2:
This whole poem of the creation-story was told for the sole purpose of instructing people to take the time off and observe the Sabbath, rather than to try to explain how this world came about.

As a former union leader you should be most appreciative of this fable, where even God himself (more accurately the Jewish deity) took this time off work, asking people to follow His example - otherwise they would be working continually 365 days a year until they drop.

Foxy,

You don't seem to understand the nature of the red herring logical fallacy you committed: See: <<https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring>>

When you responded to my post with very different content and did not address what I wrote, you changed topics to address what you wanted to say. Thus, it was you who committed the red herring fallacy.

It had nothing to do with my quoting Bible verses. It was what you stated in response to me.

OzSpen,

Belly stated that he would not tell God anything.
He would ask God several questions if he was to meet
him in person. Belly then
explained his questions. You replied to Belly
that God had already answered those questions and
you proceeded to quote from the Bible to Belly -
telling him that this is what God said.

I questioned the fact that not everyone
believes the Bible is the literal word of God.

You accused me of the "red herring" fallacy. How so?
The red herring fallacy refers to an argument that
is not relevant to the issue being discussed.

My questioning your claim that the Bible is the
literal word of God (you quoted from it in answer to
Belly's questions) is very relevant and not a fallacy
at all. You can't claim something to be true - and
quote from the Bible as proof of what you're saying
and when someone calls you out on it - come up with
the "red herring fallacy." Nice try . Not buying it.

Jayb,

<<OzSpen: When the Gospel was proclaimed after Jesus' death and resurrection,I think you better do some reading up on History>>.

It's too late to tell me I need to read up on history. I've taught Church history and its place in secular history - at the college level. I have a university PhD in NT, with emphasis on the historical Jesus.

You argue from silence when you don't know my background.

<<The Gospels weren't written until about 100 years after the death of Yeshua (Jesus) None of the people who wrote the Gospels had any direct contact with Yeshua>>.

That is false. John is described as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 21:20).

Your claim of no Gospel written before AD 100 is challenged. Dr Paul Barnett is a visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University, Sydney. His research indicates that:

** 'by the late fifties a number of written texts - Mark, Q and L (and others?) - were in existence.... We do not know precisely when these traditions reached written form' (Paul Barnett 1999. Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity, InterVarsity Press, pp 380).

** The infamous John A T Robinson of 'Honest to God' fame has published some magnificent research on 'Redating the New Testament'.

After the research, he concluded that all NT books were written before AD 70. They began with the Book of James (ca. 47-48) and concluded with the Book of Revelation (ca. late 68-70). That challenges your historical-critical belief that the Gospels weren't written until after AD 100.

<<All the branches of Christianity established by the Apostles were eliminated by the Pauline branch after the Nicene Council by the Pauline Bishops>>.

That's your hypothesis that needs to be verified or falsified through research.

<<I guess you gotta be a Southern Baptist, Ay.>>

Again you argue from lack of knowledge.

OzSpey: I have a university PhD in NT, with emphasis on the historical Jesus.

Not worth the paper it's written on.

OzSpen: That is false. John is described as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 21:20).

That doesn't mean that that John wrote the Gospel. The Gospel of John is recognised as being three different people. Likely to have bee written between 90 & 120 AD.

OzSpen: Your claim of no Gospel written before AD 100 is challenged. Dr Paul Barnett is a visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University, Sydney. His research indicates that:

** The infamous John A T Robinson of 'Honest to God' fame has published some magnificent research on 'Redating the New Testament'.

His research favours the narrative he wishes to teach. It doesn't mean that he's right. I suppose he says that Constantine Converted to Christianity long before he died. Which is BS. He was forcibly converted an hour before he died.

It was John of Patmos who wrote Revelations from an earlier Zoastrian story from Persia. Not John the Disciple.

Yep that's easy enough to do. Actually I've put the Post on hers many times before.

Early Christian Churches set up by the Disciples:

Manacurism
Montanism.
Marcionism
Arianism.
Docetism.
Trinitarianism.
Nestorianism.
Syriac
Donatists
& a few others.

After the 1st Nicene Council the Pauline Bishops issued a Law that all the bishops must abide by the new Rules those that didn't were killed. In fact they behaved just like the old Roman Emperors.

JayB,

<<His [J A T Robinson] research favours the narrative he wishes to teach. It doesn't mean that he's right.>>

False again. That would make him a dishonest researcher. NO peer-reviewed book would be accepted on your basis.

He pursued his research with an historical method that could be tested to verify or falsify the hypothesis.

By the way, your response to Robinson is exactly what you have done in your response to my post - you have given us the narrative you wish to post on OO. It doesn't mean you are correct.

<<It was John of Patmos who wrote Revelations from an earlier Zoastrian (sic) story from Persia. Not John the Disciple.>>

Wrong again. By the way, John wrote 'the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him' (1:1), not 'Revelations'.

As for reinventing a Zoroastrian story, that's your view and of those you follow. John stated exactly to whom he wrote: 'John to the seven churches that are in Asia' (1:4). It was NOT a regurgitated Zoroastrian story at all.

As for my PhD in NT, you wrote: <<Not worth the paper it's written on>>. Mate, it was a 480pp research dissertation. Do you denigrate my 5 years of research because my theological conclusions on OO do not agree with your ideology?

There are too many errors of fact and the need for challenge of your presuppositions in your last post to engage with you further on this post and topic.

OzSpen,

Just a question.

Have you read the book - "Jesus The Man," by Barbara Thiering?

Barbara Thiering claims that the Gospels were written
deliberately in a form containing two levels of meaning: the
surface level provides a simplified and often symbolic
description designed to satisfy those who needed the supernatural
as an element of their faith; and the second level, concealed
within, depicts the actual events and their real significance.

The surface stories and parables of the New Testament provide
one account - yet the real history of the life of Jesus is to be
found beneath.

Barbara Thiering developed her interest in religion with a
masters degree in theology, followed by a PhD in 1973. She began
teaching at the University of Sydney in 1967. Joining the
School of Divinity in 1976, and lectured in Old Testament,
and Hebrew Theology. Her studies led to the Dead Sea Scrolls and
a 20 year research project which has produced remarkable
findings. She has been a Member of the University of Sydney Board
of Studies in Divinity, 1973 to 1991.

Foxy,

<<Have you read the book - "Jesus The Man," by Barbara Thiering?>>

<<Barbara Thiering claims that the Gospels were written
deliberately in a form containing two levels of meaning: the
surface level provides a simplified and often symbolic
description designed to satisfy those who needed the supernatural
as an element of their faith; and the second level, concealed>>

Of course I've read Barbara Thiering.

Her world and life view included:

<<Dr Thiering has this one bad. To claim, as she did, that much of Christianity is false and misguided (including belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ) and yet still call herself a ‘Christian’, shows the disease in an advanced stage. No longer able (or willing) to believe in a divine, resurrected Jesus, she is obliged to come up with an alternative explanation.>> (Tony Payne: <http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/1990/05/the-riddle-of-barbara-thiering/>)

Thiering adopted the "pesher" technique (pronounced "paysher") in which she claimed it was possible to uncover the hidden meaning of the Gospels,

This was an invention by Thiering to allow her to impose her own meaning on the text. It is similar to what postmodern deconstructionists do today. They do not consider the intent of the original author to direct the meaning of the text. Try applying a "pesher" method to Captain Cook's journals or the next rates' notice you get from your local council.

OzSpen,

While I appreciate your giving me the link from Tony Payne's
"Matthias Media," an Evangelical Christian Publisher. I find
that the critique of Barbara Thiering's book is
hardly an objective one.

I believe that the views of innovative thinkers add value to
every society. Only by questioning traditional beliefs can those
beliefs be either reaffirmed or modified. That the connections
between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels have been either
downplayed or totally rejected by some people does nothing to
invalidate Thiering's reasoning. Of course there is no doubt
that some will find difficulty in accepting her reasoning,
despite its meticulous documentation, because what is being
examined is a matter of faith as much as scholarly hypothesis.
But to many, who have read the book, Jesus emerges from her
investigations as greater than he appeared before.

Anyway, I am sure that in the future young researchers, if they
are not biased by religious faith will study her work. Whatever
religious conclusions are reached by individuals, what will
remain unimpeachable is the quality of Thiering's scholarship.
With the background of her research presented in fine detail,
her hypothesis deserves the serious attention of all those
interested in a concept fundamental to western civilisation,
the origins of Christianity.

Foxy,

<<While I appreciate your giving me the link from Tony Payne's "Matthias Media," an Evangelical Christian Publisher. I find that the critique of Barbara Thiering's book is hardly an objective one.>>

You've committed a genetic logical fallacy (<https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy>). You did not deal with the content of Payne's article but blamed his lack of objectivity on being published by an 'evangelical'publisher. That's fallacious reasoning.

<<I believe that the views of innovative thinkers add value to every society. Only by questioning traditional beliefs can those beliefs be either reaffirmed or modified>>.

I agree. We need innovative thinkers in many disciplines. However, turning the Gospels into two levels of meaning, the surface meaning and the deeper meaning, does not get to what the author meant. It is a way for Thiering to impose her 'creative theology'. Try that approach with interpreting The Sydney Morning Herald.

Attempt that philosophy with questioning traditional beliefs about gravity, breathing oxygen and copulation.

<<That the connections between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels have been either downplayed or totally rejected by some people does nothing to invalidate Thiering's reasoning>>

That's your assertion, but without evidence it is nothing more than your opinion. You seem to obtain this view from Thiering (pp. 7-12).

<<Anyway, I am sure that in the future young researchers, if they are not biased by religious faith will study her work.>>

I wish them luck as they try to obtain Thiering's conclusions from the text. They are not there.

No researcher is without bias - none! Objective research that is peer-reviewed is one way to overcome the bias. But what you've written here is your Thiering-influenced bias of theological liberalism.

<<what will remain unimpeachable is the quality of Thiering's scholarship>>

Quality scholarship? You must be trying to kid us!

It was Thiering who claimed that Jesus Christ was the 'son of Joseph, a descendant of King David through the Nathan line and of Mary. Jesus was conceived during his parents' betrothal period before their legal marriage' (p. 539).

(continued)

(continued)

Foxy,

Contrary to the exegesis of the biblical text, Thiering claims that 'in AD29 he [Jesus] joined with the Twelve Apostles to oppose John the Baptist' (p. 539). This is another Thiering contrivance, not based on quality research.

Why was he crucified? It was 'through a political stratagem' (p. 539) and he was 'given poison on the cross to end his sufferings, but merely lost consciousness and was helped to revive by his friends' (p. 540).

What happened after that? He joined 'with the pro-Gentile party' and led it to Rome in AD 61 and was alive in Rome in AD 64 and 'his death is not recorded' (p. 540).

One reviewer of her book wrote:

<<I felt distinctly uneasy as Dr Thiering breathlessly wrote off one Christian belief after another, having discovered the key to understanding with her pesher. It is all too easy, and as unsatisfying as being given a mathematical formula at school that enabled you to answer all the questions at the stroke of a pen.

<<While the introduction suggests that Dr Thiering's research will 'open up a whole new understanding of historical Christianity', in effect it attempts to pull down the shutters on Christian faith, the things we trust in but cannot prove, for ever>> (Peter Stanford, Independent, 5 October 1992 <https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/book-review-who-had-three-children-with-mary-magdalene-jesus-the-man-barbara-thiering-doubleday-1699-1555621.html>

It was Thiering who made the outrageous claim that Mary Magdalene conceived to Jesus in the 'trial marriage' period and had three children to him (p. 545). She arrived at this ingenuous conclusion through her "pesher" method of interpretation that enabled Thiering to read her message into the story. She created this fiction of the "deeper meaning" about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene through Magdalene's anointing of Jesus' feet, which was central to the Qumran wedding ceremony.

And you have the audacity to call this radical extremism 'unimpeachable ... quality ... scholarship'. It reads more like a fairy tale, invented by Barbara after an hallucinogenic dream.

OzSpen,

Your total rejection of Thiering's book is understandable
and to be expected being an evangelist you are going to
find difficulty in in accepting her reasoning because what
is being examined is a matter of faith as much as a scholarly
hypothesis. However this does nothing to invalidate Thiering's
argument. To many Jesus emerges from Thiering's investigations
as greater than he appeared before. This is Thiering's approach.
She sees the fresh view of the origins of Christianity which
emerges from the integration of diverse material as an exciting
chapter in the history of Christian thought - it subsequently
forms an integral part of the necessary and ongoing reform of
the religion.

In Thiering's life of Jesus, his person is never allowed to
lose"full humanity." She admits that the "divinity" of Jesus
may have to be sacrificed to the humanity. In her judgement,
however, it does not follow that "because an illusory ideal of a
perfect human life fails, the Church has no more resources for
moral teaching."

Whatever religious conclusions are reached by individuals what
remains unimpeachable is the quality of Thiering's scholarship.

With the background to her research presented in her book in
fine detail, her hypothesis deserves the serious attention of
all those interested in the origins of Christianity.

However, I can see that we are so far apart in our views on
this subject that any further discussion with you would be
pointless. So lets leave it there.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

<<Your total rejection of Thiering's book is understandable
and to be expected being an evangelist....>>

Let's get something very clear. I am not an evangelist.

OzSpen,

My mistake. I simply assumed you were, because of your
link to Matthias Media and Tony Payne, and the questions
you asked of myself and Belly, as well as your comments
on Prof. Thiering. I now understand that you find it
intellectually interesting to learn what people believe.
Thank You for clearing it up for me.

Foxy,

<<My mistake. I simply assumed you were, because of your
link to Matthias Media and Tony Payne, and the questions
you asked of myself and Belly, as well as your comments
on Prof. Thiering. I now understand that you find it
intellectually interesting to learn what people believe.
Thank You for clearing it up for me.>>

You don't seem to know the difference between an evangelist and an evangelical Christian.

By the way, I read and consider the enemy as well as supportive publications.

I do have a mind of my own that I use to think through the issues and know that Thiering's world view was to impose her destructive meaning on the text, all in the name of using a 'pesher' method.

Today, some scholars are doing the same kind of thing with postmodern deconstruction. It also destroys the intent of the original author.

OzSpen: As for my PhD in NT, you wrote: <<Not worth the paper it's written on>>. Mate, it was a 480pp research dissertation. Do you denigrate my 5 years of research because my theological conclusions on OO do not agree with your ideology?

Yep, I do.

You were researching from the point of view that the New Testament is accurate & you believe every word to be true, from the start. That's not research, that's regurgitation.

This religion superstition is getting out of hand AGAIN.
A workmate of mine is a so-called happy-clapper who is so convinced that he'll end up in heaven & be happy ever after. Now, if he so convinced then why is he scared of flying or indeed anything that could end his earthly existence ? I'd have thought with such prospects as he believes he'd welcome an early departure from here ?

Jayb,

<<Yep, I do.

You were researching from the point of view that the New Testament is accurate & you believe every word to be true, from the start. That's not research, that's regurgitation.>>

Have you read my dissertation to know that your statements here are telling the truth? What was the title of my dissertation?

Have you read it in its entirety?

If your statement is not based on facts from my dissertation, you are telling me a furphy.

Are you a bit hostile towards me and my worldview?

OzSpen: Have you read my dissertation to know that your statements here are telling the truth? What was the title of my dissertation?

No I haven't, but I would be very interested to dissect it in a non-biased way. I can do that.

If you let me know where I can get your dissertation I would be happy to read it & give you my honest opinion without bias.

individual,

<<This religion superstition is getting out of hand AGAIN.>>

That's your assertion coming out of your worldview.

Are you wanting to censor my Christian comments on OO and put them in the class of superstition?

<<A workmate of mine is a so-called happy-clapper who is so convinced that he'll end up in heaven & be happy ever after. Now, if he so convinced then why is he scared of flying or indeed anything that could end his earthly existence ? I'd have thought with such prospects as he believes he'd welcome an early departure from here ?>>

That does sound hypocritical to me from the little info you've given.

However, you won't get me snorkelling on the Barrier Reef because I can't swim. It would be presumptuous of me to commit suicide by jumping out of the boat and hoping I'd survive. It would be stupidity to do such an act when I know better.

If he is "scared of flying", you haven't given enough info to say why he has this fear. I wonder what he'd say if I asked him. Why don't you invite him to join this conversation to explain why he has this fear of flying.

You are making pejorative comments about the Christian faith, which you label as "religion". I would not do that with your worldview, but I will expose the holes in it and the possible logical conclusions to which it comes.

In being a "happy clapper" your colleague is in good company with the Psalmist who wrote, 'Come, everyone! Clap your hands! Shout to God with joyful praise!' (Psalm 47:1). I'd be happy at any time to join him in clapping and shouting in praise to the Lord God. He is in excellent biblical company when he follows the Psalmist.

Jayb,

It was you who wrote of my dissertation, <<You were researching from the point of view that the New Testament is accurate & you believe every word to be true, from the start. That's not research, that's regurgitation.>>

Now you state that <<I haven't [read it], but I would be very interested to dissect it in a non-biased way. I can do that.>>

That's audacious of you to label my dissertation as 'That's not research, that's regurgitation' - and you haven't read it. With respect, I can't trust you with an honest assessment when you dump your worldview on my dissertation, without having read it. I think you need to check your honesty gauge.

You are firing from the hip - without knowledge.

Now you want to suck me into the idea that with my dissertation, you will "dissect it in a non-biased way. I can do that." What a joke! You have a very biased worldview and you couldn't dissect it without that bias coming into play.

You've been constant in tearing into Christianity as 'religion' and you want me to believe you are a non-biased writer?

OzSpen: In being a "happy clapper" your colleague is in good company with the Psalmist who wrote, 'Come, everyone! Clap your hands! Shout to God with joyful praise!'

Sing, "Fa hee's a jolly good fellar, fa hee's a jolly good fella, & so say all of uus, & so say all of uss sus, sus... fa hee's a jolly good fell...la, & so say all of uss!" There ya go. We all can be happy Clappers.

Now where can I read your dissertation? Or, is that just more BS from a BAC.

OzSpen,

You wrote to Jayb about his denigrating your 5 years of work
on your thesis because you say this is due to the fact that it
does not agree with his views -
yet you denigrate Thiering's 20 years work - because it doesn't
agree with your views. It seems to me that there's a double
standard here

Jayb,

You have committed the Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy: 'Presenting the argument in such a way that makes the argument look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or the use of exaggeration', https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

I will not continue interaction with you as your fallacies prevent our having a coherent discussion.

<<Now where can I read your dissertation? Or, is that just more BS from a BAC.>>

I will NOT give a link to you as you attack my integrity with your ad hominem fallacy.

Bye, bye!

No, Foxy.

<<yet you denigrate Thiering's 20 years work - because it doesn't
agree with your views. It seems to me that there's a double
standard here>>

I reject Thiering's conclusions because of her improper 'pesher' methodology that caused her to invent her conclusion and dump it on the text - rather than getting the meaning from the text.

I found her to be a dishonest researcher in what she did to deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith and still want to call herself Christian.

That's deceit, in my understanding.

OzSpen: I will NOT give a link to you as you attack my integrity with your ad hominem fallacy.

Called out & failed. Typical "Born Again Christian" BS. Now nobody will give you any credence.

Thanks Foxy. You are so right.

OzSpen: I found her to be a dishonest researcher in what she did to deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith and still want to call herself Christian. That's deceit, in my understanding.

It's not deceit. Thiering investigated the fundamentals of the Christian Faith & found them wanting. She wrote about her findings which causes debate. Something that all good Researches & Writers do.

As you have produced a Paper, you should allow it to be debated. If you can't do that then one would have to assume the Paper was produced with a built in Bias towards a BAC point of view to start with. Therefore it would be considered worthless by General Academic Standards. I assume your Dissertation was assessed fellow BAC Academics with similar Biases. Not good practice.

OzSpen,

Of course if you take the Bible as the literal word
of God - your stance against Thiering is perfectly
understandable.

As I told you previously - your rejection
of her work does nothing to invalidate her argument. She
substantiates each step.

Of course you will find difficulty
in accepting her reasoning, despite its meticulous
documentation, because what is being examined is a matter of
faith as much as a scholarly hypothesis. You can say and
believe what ever you want but what remains unimpeachable
is the quality of Thiering's scholarship and her hypothesis
deserves the serious attention of all those interested in
the origins of Christianity.

//I will NOT give a link to you as you attack my integrity with your ad hominem fallacy.//

Christ almighty, how amazingly petty and childish.

Here's the link for you Jayb, seeing as Spencer is so determined to make an ass of himself. It's the PDF at the bottom of the page.'

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/50510

OzSpen,
I wasn't referring to suicide, I was referring to him being scared of flying, stop being so Christian by twisting words.

Thanks Tony. I read the first few pages & so far it seems to be a rebuttal of Crossant. Whoever he is. That's all. Nothing new or any ground breaking revelations so far.

I will read the whole thing, make some notes & draft a reply as I see it from a neutral point. It maybe some time, but I will report back.

Should I agree with Crossant, Spencer, or disagree depends on if they are taking the Testaments as being absolute truths or can have mistakes in them.

JayB,

<<I will read the whole thing, make some notes & draft a reply as I see it from a neutral point>>

There is no such person as one who can respond "from a neutral point [of view]". How do I know you, I, you and anyone else have biases and cannot be neutral?

You have lots of things you are not neutral about. Whenever you give us your opinion in Online Opinion, you demonstrate your bias and that you are unable to see things "from a neutral point".

You have a bias (cannot remain neutral) about which brand of coffee you prefer, what is REAL football, and your favourite sports' team. Your economic, religious and political philosophies are not neutral - you have biases. When it comes to God and his action in the universe, you have no "neutral" point of view. Neither do I.

These are your presuppositions about issues. It's not wrong to have presuppositions, but they need to be tested to discover evidence to support or reject them. Presuppositions relate to what we assume to be true. I have them. So do you. We cannot be neutral about anything from trivial things such as which breed of dog we enjoy the most to who created the grand design in the universe.

Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, Muslims and sceptics cannot be "neutral" on anything.

Let's check a couple of your presuppositions in your short post that demonstrate you cannot be "neutral" when examining my dissertation:

<<I read the first few pages & so far it seems to be a rebuttal of Crossant. Whoever he is. That's all. Nothing new or any ground breaking revelations so far.>>

In a few pages out of 480 pages, you've read nothing new or ground breaking. That's because you have a bias (can't be neutral) about a Christian assessment. Your "neutrality" extends to the point of not knowing who John Dominic Crossan is and you don't bother to spell his name correctly. He is NOT "Crossant".

So you didn't read the early pages of the dissertation with care.

(continued in next post)

(continuation)

JayB,

<<Should I agree with Crossant, Spencer, or disagree depends on if they are taking the Testaments as being absolute truths or can have mistakes in them.>>

This demonstrates a WHOPPING lack of neutrality. I have to take the OT and NT according to your presupposition that these 2 testaments CANNOT teach "absolute truths and can have mistakes in them".

There you establish your own presuppositional absolute against absolutes and in favour of errors in NT. You are not "neutral" about the nature of Scripture. You come to this discussion with your bias against God's absolutes in Scripture.

What's the topic of this discussion? "What is your view for one to worship humans?" Your and my responses in the latter part of this discussion have departed from that topic.

I found your reply to be dishonest because:

1. Up front, you refused to acknowledge your presuppositional biases and that you cannot be neutral on any topic - including my dissertation.

2. Then, you have the audacity to judge my 480pp dissertation after reading only a few pages. You conclude, "Nothing new or any ground breaking revelations so far".

If I made a judgment on extensive writing by you after reading only a few pages, you'd have reason send me off to training in logic and assessment of any document. Your "neutrality" is shattered on the rocks of your bias against my writing – after reading only a few pages.

3. You created a new absolute: "depends on if they are taking the Testaments as being absolute truths or can have mistakes in them".

So the NT must not contain absolute truths and it must be admitted that the NT has mistakes in it. You do believe in absolute biases - Scripture must not be absolute and it must contain errors.