Jump to content

PaulS

Administrator
  • Posts

    3,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by PaulS

  1. Wrong. You will find this verse in all early manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), the Codex Vaticanus (4th century), the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and the Codex Bezae (5th century). Matthew 28:19 directly from the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus: γηϲ · πορευθεντεϲ μαθητευϲατε πα τα τα εθνη βαπτι ζοντεϲ αυτουϲ · ειϲ το ονομα του πρϲ και του ϋϊου και του αγιου πνϲ ˙ Translated it says "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Reference: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0 Where do you get your sources from? The teachings of Christ? Please demonstrate what in the NT is attributed to Jesus as his instructions concerning baptism, or do you have teachings of Jesus concerning how to baptise that weren't included in the NT? Now I see where you get your source information from. This above paragraph and your next several are entirely plagiarized from IslamWeb.net here: https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/27986/the-effect-of-paul-on-christianity-and-differences-between-christian-sects The reality is, the New Testament is the only source we have for what was decided at the Jerusalem Council (accurately transcribed or not), and nowhere does it refer to Paul 'corrupting' Christianity. The Council 'agreed' on these rules (although IslamWeb.net has taken some poetic license in imagining what rules were agreed on), including representatives who were disciples of Jesus when he was alive (and Jesus' brother). Don't rely on Muslim propaganda. Maybe deal with legitimate New Testament scholars. I thought you would have understood this from allegedly having a PhD in Comparative Religion! You previously seemed to claim the Dead Sea Scrolls were forgeries. Are they now not forgeries for the sake of your argument? Or are you still saying they're forgeries simply because you think they can't be verified against the originals? You still haven't answered what evidence you have to support that the DSS's are forgeries, or is that argument not evidenced on IslamWeb? Regarding cut & paste: Akay, when I mentioned to you before that cutting and pasting swathes of material was not conducive to good discussion here, you replied with the following: "This is not cutting and pasting, this is the words of Islam and my personal words And as I said, I'm not talking to you alone, there are people who love links The discussion must have conditions and you are not qualified to discuss because you have not studied Islam or anything else. And you only say about me cut and paste akay did not answer You have become a mockery of your lies and ignorance about me and Islam People laugh at you". But moving forward, in future if you post material that you have taken from other websites, please attribute it accordingly and make it clear that these are not your actual words. Referencing is a pretty standard academic protocol, although plagiarizing is probably pretty common too. Please also be reminded that the Forum Guidelines, that you agreed to when you signed up as a member here, state "You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board". IslamWeb.net is a copyright website 2022 with all rights reserved. Please ensure you do not infringe copyright when posting here. Thankyou in advance.
  2. I think our intelligence is different perhaps. We know that violence leads to more violence. We know the violence causes harm to community life. We can recognize that words or pictures cannot physically harm us. I don't think it's a 'morality' issue, just a common sense one.
  3. Yep, pretty well known. The authors of Matthew and Luke also allowed Jesus to be called Son of God. They were not Pauline theologians. Wrong. There are plenty of verses that deduce exactly that - I have already cited several. Here's another: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 I don't agree with them, but they still exist and you can't ignore them just for the sake of your argument. The argument for a Trinity WAS deduced from NT texts. People such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and many others refer back to the NT when making their case for the Trinity. It doesn't make sense to me that God would at anytime would want people killed because they don't follow certain religious rules, but hey, that's religion for you. If you think it is clear that the sect of Christianity believed Jesus to be a human Prophet and nothing more, then what are your thoughts about why Paul, as a devout Jew, felt the need to persecute Christians? Surely if early Christians were following Jewish beliefs about Jesus, there would be no need for Paul to persecute them? As for calling the Dead Sea Scrolls forgeries, are you maybe mistaking the 16 fragments at the Museum of the Bible which have been identified as forgeries, and not the 100,000+ genuine Dead Sea Scroll articles? As Rom asks - what is your evidence that all the dead sea scrolls are forgeries?
  4. I guess I'm just saying that if 'something' was providing unmerited favor solely for our benefit in providing the 10 Commandments, the bigger question would be why that something didn't do a better job. Seems pretty lackluster to me. Where do you get this rule set from? If we cannot understand the giver how can we take any name for it in vain? Yep, agreed. That's life. Yep, another good rule to try and live by. Makes for a more harmonious society in general. Okay.
  5. I would agree, but I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying they're not really responsible for their actions because of societal training & genetics, so therefore it's not pathetic?
  6. Whilst I agree there is a 'Pauline Christianity', it is not true to say all Christians only follow Paul. There is much scholarship and debate about these different types of Christianity represented in the New testament, and indeed the various early Christian groups in the 1st century. Like Muslims who disagree on how to interpret the Quran, there are Christians who interpret the New Testament differently also. It reads to me that Jesus was throwing himself on the ground in despair in this story (Matthew), not as an instruction on how to pray. Jesus was actually asked how to pray according to Luke, yet failed to mention any requirement to do so in a prone position. The fact that Muslims do so, means nothing really. Oh and Jesus didn't use a mat but just the ground. Why aren't Muslims true to Jesus in that regard? Yes fasting was a tradition that has carried over into Islam from Judaism. It's also very trendy at the moment for losing weight and reducing diabetes! But traditions change. Some Christians still do fast, many do not. I pilgrimage to Bali as much as I can. Does that count? They make the best Nasi Goreng! Again, it comes down to interpretation. Yes the Trinity developed over time after Jesus, but those who developed it did so piecing together statements made by Jesus. Things like when Jesus says he is God (which you say he doesn't) and statements like I & the Father are one, saying he is sending the Holy Spirit, etc. So it's a bit disingenuous to rely on a single statement of Jesus not clarifying the issue. I mean likewise Jesus never said "I have come to die as a sacrifice for you because God thinks you're all evil due to Adam & Eve sinning"...but surely you get the picture. Blatantly incorrect according to the New Testament, but you seem to be solidly fixed on the contrary. Well, it is really. A passionate evangelist like you won't think so, but outside looking in - it is. But each to their own - just cause no harm.
  7. Even if they were meaning to be disrespectful, responding with violence and death was pathetic at best. Why such people feel they need to physically intervene on behalf of their God is beyond me. In my mind, it just confirms how imaginary such a God is because that God isn't doing anything about it, just man is. Should they have published the cartoons? To me it's kind of like saying something rude to somebody. Sometimes maybe it is necessary to make a point and at other times maybe it's just rudeness that is better left out of it. I'm no expert of Denmark politics but it does seem like there has been significant disquiet in that country concerning Islam and like you say, maybe they were making political or other statements. But at the end of the day, like any 5 year old will tell you - sticks and stones may break my bones but words (or cartoons) will never hurt me.
  8. Well, I think he means well! :). But yes, I am a bit disappointed with this series on spirituality. Previous stuff I had read from him I quite liked, but I haven't gotten much out of this lot unfortunately. I think I would too. I'll look into it.
  9. I read Gulley as putting forth his views and understandings, rather than saying "this" is the only way to understand God. So I read a subtle difference, but maybe that's just me.
  10. Perhaps. Christianity does seem to be seriously embedded in society in his part of the world. Maybe deciding that God doesn't exist is just a step too far for him. Then again, maybe he feels compelled from personal experiences but just can't put his finger on it either. People are free to claim their own personal experiences and even share them I think. But yes, don't "tell" me this is how God must be believed, or this is the only way to understand God. As an adult, I've always found it rather lack-lustre that people think an all-powerful God needs a mouthpiece. I would've thought God communicating on God's own behalf should be sufficient.
  11. Agreed. Both sides are pathetic and both should be called out for their poor behavior. Muslim or not, rioting is ridiculous in these circumstances. To be 'offended' on behalf of a God is nonsense, but to take violent action because of said offense is unacceptable. Tolerance is not a word either side seems familiar with in these circumstances. Belief in God/Allah seems to be the reason to bring out the worst in some people.
  12. Yes, they're called "pseudepigraphs". I'm no sure why that is such a big deal - somebody thought what they thought and so they wrote it down. I don't expect they thought it was ever going to be included in a man-made cannon of scripture. Yes, John as late as nearly 100CE. Yes, later Church fathers' assigned authorship. Maybe accurately, but who knows.
  13. The 2nd-last of Phil's sermons on what it means to be spiritual: When I was in my late teens, I began dating a nice, young lady and was growing fond of her. I think she was feeling the same way, because one day she invited me to dinner so I could meet her family. I saw this as a positive development since most of the other girls I had dated were reluctant to let anyone know they were spending time with me, advising me not to greet them in public or do anything that would indicate we knew one another. So I took this as a good sign. She was willing to go on record about our relationship. I went to her house on a Sunday evening. Her father, a deeply religious man, greeted me at the door and invited me to sit down in their living room. He had a few questions he wanted to ask me. Just a few, before we ate. I realized this was the interview and totally understood it. I never had a daughter, but I have a granddaughter, and if some guy starts hanging around her, I’m darn sure going to be interviewing him. So the father and I exchanged pleasantries. I felt it was going well and that I was making a good impression. I assured him I intended to vote for Ronald Reagan, a youthful indiscretion I hope you’ll forgive. I told him I went to church every Sunday, and assured him I didn’t drink, smoke, or take drugs. I could tell he was warming up to me. I mentioned that I had grown up Catholic, but had left that denomination to become Quaker. He seemed especially relieved to hear that and made a crack about the Catholics, which honked me off, but I didn’t say anything because his daughter was cute. Then our discussion turned toward theology and he asked me whether I believed in the Trinity. I had heard the word trinity, but wasn’t sure what it meant, so asked him. He told me God exists as three equally divine persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This sounded so implausible I assumed his question was a trap, that he was testing me, that no one in their right minds would believe something so incomprehensible, and I said, “That makes no sense to me,” which was apparently the wrong answer. The dinner was quiet, even, now that I think about it some 42 years later, a bit strained. When I phoned her the next day to ask her out for the following weekend, she told me her father forbid her from dating me. I had met a man for whom the right answers were everything and I had failed the test. We’ve been thinking about what it means to be spiritual, contrasting it with what it means to be religious. This morning, I want to suggest that religion is about having answers, and they must always be the right answers. Indeed, much of religion’s energy is heavily invested in formulating, disseminating, and enforcing the right answers. These right answers eventually become creeds which must be believed to join the religion, then are repeated every week so those in the religion will remember the right answers. And so in Christianity we have the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, to name a few. The Mennonites, Baptists, Lutherans, and others have their Confessions, the Anglicans have their Articles, and the Congregationalists have their Declarations. Even American Quakers, who for hundreds of years thoroughly rejected creedalism, eventually got around to writing our own creed in 1887, the Richmond Declaration, which ironically warns against creeds, except for that one. Religions devote most of their energies to having the right answers. Let’s contrast that with spirituality, which is always less concerned with the right answers and more passionate about asking questions. The goal of the spiritual is never certainty, but exploration. While religions must have borders and guidelines, spirituality favors curiosity and exploration. Religions put down roots as quickly as they can. Spirituality is always looking beyond the horizon, venturing into the unknown. It has made its peace with mystery and uncertainty. Let me tell you a story of something that recently occurred, that illustrates what happens when the right answers no longer work. In conversations with three different friends, I was asked why God wasn’t intervening to stop the murder of Ukrainian children by Russian military forces. I’ve known these three friends many, many years. They are kind and wonderful people. Like me, they grew up in the church and were taught, as I was, that nothing was impossible for God, that God had the power to do anything God wanted to do. So why, they asked, wasn’t God doing something to help the Ukrainians? I sensed each of my three friends were spiritually distressed and not wanting to add to their burdens, I reverted to the language of traditional religion and said, “I don’t know why God isn’t rescuing the Ukrainians. God’s ways are a mystery. Perhaps when we see God face to face, we will understand.” If that answer is familiar to you, it’s because it’s one of the accepted “right” answers religions offer about the mystery of human suffering and evil. I didn’t tell them what I really thought, that God might not have the power to save the Ukrainians. Nor did I point out that there is scant historical evidence of God intervening to save good people from bad people. Some 187 million people, many of them children, died from war in the 20th century and if God did anything to stop that, it escaped my notice. As you might imagine, that is not a right answer, according to religion. But I should have been less concerned about defending orthodoxy and more concerned about telling the truth. My friends, after all, are adults, and perfectly capable of wrestling with difficult issues. So when they asked why God didn’t intervene to help the Ukrainians, I should have been a little less religious and a little more spiritual. I should have said, “Maybe God doesn’t have that kind of power. Maybe God can’t do anything God wants. Maybe God can’t do everything we think God should. Maybe we’re all on our own here, maybe all we have is one another, so if we want a better world, it’s up to us, not God.” Isn’t that a sobering thought? I did my friends a disservice when they asked me that question. I gave them a religious answer, not a spiritual one. I told them I didn’t understand. That wasn’t truthful. I do understand why God doesn’t intervene to save the Ukrainians. Because God can’t. My reluctance to say that aloud to my friends is because a part of me still likes the comfort of pat answers. Our creeds and affirmations and confessions haven’t done us any favors. They’ve made us spiritually and intellectually complacent. They’ve held our existential hands when they should have kicked our existential butts. Friends, we will never arrive at the truth by parroting without question all we’ve been told and taught. Religion says, “Believe!” Spirituality says, “Think, reflect, imagine, ask!” Then it says one more thing. Act. Think, reflect, imagine, ask, then act.
  14. It does seem a struggle for Akay and I have hidden his previous post and sent another warning. Hopefully Akay can agree to participate as per the Guidelines and his word he gave when he signed up, but at this stage I'm not holding out much hope.
  15. I struggle to imagine that all 10 Commandments are 'existential facts of life'. Should I honor my father and mother if they sexual abuse me and my siblings? I shouldn't steal a loaf of bread off a rich man if my family is starving? I shouldn't commit adultery? Now are we clear here on what adultery is? Can I have sex without being married or are we only talking about affairs? Why should I not covet my neighbors wife if there is no corresponding existential fact of life to not covet a neighbors husband? No, whilst I think these might be okay guidelines, I think greater existential facts about life could go along the lines of: Never commit war Don't fight with anyone over anything Don't' sexually abuse children Do your best in life, but no that sometimes you will make mistakes (that's okay). We're only humans - do your best
  16. I always think people run into difficulty when they try to tell me they 'know' what Jesus preached. Yet you quote John when it suits your argument. I think they call this Café Christianity. My point is that there were people who thought of Jesus as God. You said there weren't. You are wrong according to the New Testament. I did also quote from Mathew, 2 Peter, Philippians and Colossians, to name just a few. If you are going to use the New Testament to support your argument, you are going to run into trouble. I agree - but all those religions are mistaken. I mean it's fair enough - they didn't know any better for their time and were just trying to explain the questions about life as best as they could - but science has demonstrated evolution beyond all doubt. Homo sapiens did not simply 'appear' in their current form but rather they evolved over millions of years. Modern humans have existed for some +150,000 years.
  17. I would object as much as I think it is a waste of time and is an unnecessary environmental hazard. I have no regard for the people doing the burning, or those outraged by the burning. I see the book burning in Sweden go the result it most likely sought - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61134734
  18. Of course on one hand, there should be no issue. Books are just books, paper and print as you say, and in this day and age people just print more of them. So burning is a waste of time and is unnecessary environmental harm. But of course on the other hand is the intent, which clearly here will be to make a point about somebody's else's belief and to antagonize them. I think burning books is a childish and petty action, as will be any response and outrage.
  19. Well not quite - you seem to have ignored or deliberately left out the bible verses that actually contradict your statement: Philippians 2:5-6 “You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.” John 10:30 “The Father and I are one.” Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.“ 2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.“ Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation". The list goes on and on. I'm not saying I agree with what various biblical authors wrote, but many certainly did seem to believe that Jesus was indeed God, and not only a Prophet. What do you say about these verses that contradict you? (Please, without any videos).
  20. What started out as a story around the campfire concerning the unanswered questions of life (why is there suffering and hardship), morphed into an intricate theology over the centuries and became one of the most harmful cult beliefs in history. Nobody is born inherently evil - even most Christians can't bring themselves to thinking a baby is born evil. We know from the science of evolution that one couple did not populate the world in the last 6000 or so years, so we are NOT a product of their sin. Further to that, where was "God's Word" for the +150,000 years that homosapiens walked the earth before Genesis was written? To me 'sinful nature' is just a way to understand that people sometimes make bad choice concerning how to live. The bible was written over hundreds of years, by dozens of different authors, from all sorts of stages of cultural and societal development (as well as there being the many, many writings that religion DIDN'T include in the bible). That's why we see old writers attributing genocide and rape to God, stoning human beings to death for sex outside of marriage, prohibitions on eating shellfish (applicable to somebody in the desert, less so to somebody who catches fresh ocean crustacenas each day), etc. The bible is a representation of many different beliefs and thoughts. I no longer understand what people mean when they say 'believe in' the bible - i.e. Who's interpretation? Possibly. The ancient Hebrews worshipped lots of God's before they slowly transitioned to monotheism. I think the golden calf most likely represented the Egyptian bull god Apis. For me, some of the kindest most giving people I know were and are atheists. I have no doubt Christianity attracts 'good' people, as it also attracts 'bad', and every other kind in between. But I think if Christianity is what helps you lead a happier, more fulfilled life, all power to you. Sounds good - just start a thread yourself if you're happy to share. I for one would find it interesting, I'm sure.
  21. I tend to think that Luke, being the latest Gospel to be written and some 40 or 50 years after Jesus died, may be more about developing Christianity than accurate reporting of Jesus' life. Hate simply did not seem to be a particular focus of Jesus'.
  22. For me personally, I'm not sure there is a 'right' religion. Certainly Christianity is the largest, but I think that is mostly due to geo-politics rather than 'rightness'. I mean, Islam is projected to become the largest religion by about 2050 - so will Islam then become the 'right' religion? And I agree the message seems be a lot about how you treat other people, but I see various degrees of how that is interpreted and practiced - from the most compassionate to the downright evil. Not believing in the invisible is certainly not evil. In fact, I would say that any God that chooses to exclude somebody that uses their God-given logic to come up with a different understanding than what said God allegedly says they are meant to, is the true evil here. I do think you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to maybe why Christianity has been so popular - governments throughout history have adopted and used it as a means to control their populations. If you can convince people to "behave or else" then you are much likely to rule longer. Constantine started the trend in the early 300's when he claimed that Jesus wanted him to win a war because of the vision of a cross in the sky. I always find it ironic that Christians celebrate Rome adopting Christianity at this point - believing that the Prince of Peace, the one who lived by 'turn the other cheek' is now showing solidarity with one particular side in a war. This is standout politics and not religion in my mind. I think Judaism and later Christianity turned 'sinning' into something it wasn't. The Garden of Eden myth told in Genesis wasn't about 'original sin', it wasn't about being 'separated' from God, and it certainly wasn't about eternal punishment after death. So for me, there is no such thing as a sinner, other than there are people who can cause harm in our society (warmongers, murderers, rapists etc) and others much, much less so (gossip, noth giving to charity etc). There's not an in and an out group as far as God is concerned, but we as a society do get concerned when various levels of harm are caused. I don't think we can know God, if indeed there is a God to know per se. I like what Xenophanes had to say, about 500 years before Jesus existed: If cattle and horses, or lions, had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce the works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make the gods' bodies the same shape as their own. He also said: Men create the gods in their own image. So I think go easy on yourself - it seems mankind has never firmly landed on exactly who or what God is - despite what many will say. If Jesus' words are to be believed, when he said whoever is not against us is for us, I think he was summarizing one single message - love one another. The rest is religion and dogma.
  23. Welcome to the Forum PinkAzalea, I hope you enjoy reviewing the site here and the very many discussion threads. I'm not precisely sure when this forum first started (15 years ago?) but over the years many contributors and participants have come and gone, so you might find it difficult to determine who the 'you' actually is and whether 'we' are a group of people you can relate to. But whatever the case, I hope you find the place of some value. Cheers Paul
  24. No, more of an 'appreciation' for that connectedness. An understanding that it exists. I think you might 'live' an appreciation of it even if you actually think you are just being cold and analytical. I'm not talking about being all goo goo and ga ga over spirituality/connectedness, but rather that we have a sense that we are connected to everything. You are certainly aware that everything is connected - does it influence your life at all? I know it's cliche, but even rich people experience unhappiness, I am confident even those oligarchs with superyachts. Not that being poor makes one happy either, and I don't believe in any romance about not being rich making anybody happier than a rich person. What I am thinking is those who are rich or poor (or anywhere in between) possibly lead happier more fulfilled lives if they feel 'connected' to their existence. Perhaps a superyacht can help that, but I suspect it is not required.
  25. Hi Jim, Hello back from Mandurah, Western Australia. I hope you enjoy participating here and find it to be a useful Forum. I don't know whether you noticed or not but we've just been discussing/questioning spirituality lately in the thread below. Maybe you'd like to broaden what you mean about Grace, 100% physical and 0% spiritual there? Whatever the case, I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service