PaulS
-
Posts
3,432 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
79
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by PaulS
-
-
15 hours ago, akay said:
I am basically a member of Islamweb
I have many articles
And you did not study Islam and do not know much about the Bible.
No need to get testy, Akay! It doesn't matter if you have many articles on IslamWeb (or Islamhelpline, as per your last cut and paste). What matters on this Forum is that you are breaching copyright when you cut and paste from other sites without recognition. Please reference these other sites when you are posting material here that is already presented there. I am sure you can understand that this Forum has no way of identifying or confirming that you own these words on other sites. Please adhere to the Guidelines you agreed to abide by, when you signed up here.
Akay, in your fervour you seem to have overlooked that all I am arguing for in the matter of the doctrine of the Trinity, is that there are many verses Christians have used to 'deduce' the doctrine, rightly or wrongly. You initially denied these verses existed, then you claimed they were later additions, and now you argue for their minimization for other reasons. I don't disagree with you that the Trinity may not be an accurate teaching, but to argue that there is no biblical support for the doctrine is incorrect. The arguments made by later Christians clearly demonstrates they used biblical texts to deduce the doctrine. Whether they were accurate in doing so, is another matter entirely.
15 hours ago, akay said:Jesus did not write the bible that was revealed by God. Not even was it written immediately after his departure. He did not order or desire at any time in his life to write anything on his behalf. Therefore, the Bible which is in circulation today is not a representation of Jesus' teachings.
This is a 1+1=3 argument. This is like saying people today can't accurately document what happened in WW2 - when we know they can. I don't disagree that there is much to speculate about and debate, concerning the accuracy of every word claiming to be a message from God, or Jesus, or Allah or Mohamed for that matter, but your logic is faulty if you think it can be established that the Bible in no way represents Jesus.
15 hours ago, akay said:Out of the total of 27 Books of the New Testament, more than half is authored by Paul. As opposed to Paul, the Master has not written a single word of the twenty-seven books. If you can lay your hands on what is called "'A Red Letter Bible," you will find every word alleged to have been uttered by Jesus - in red ink and the rest in normal black ink. Don't be shocked to find that in this so called Gospel of Jesus, over ninety percent of the 27 Books of the New Testament is printed in black ink!
No shock here - this is well understood by anybody who has done just a little bit of reading outside of the Bible. Paul was a major influencer of what eventually became Christianity. But whether the Bible is representative of Jesus' teachings or not is subject to much debate. Most professional scholars acknowledge shortcomings for any outright agreement on all matters. Does this mean everything written by Paul misses the mark - of course not.
15 hours ago, akay said:note
When I talked about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I mentioned the video that talks about5 Dead Sea scroll fragments found to be forged
Thanks for clarifying that the bulk of the Dead Sea Scrolls (some 100,000+ articles) are in fact genuine and not forgeries (i.e. 5 x fragments). Seems a bit of a waste of time pointing out such an insignificant amount of forgery, but for whatever reason you felt it important to.
15 hours ago, akay said:And certainly the Jews distorted their books, so do we believe their book and their words after trying to kill the Prophet Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them?
THE Jews? What, like every single one of them? So you think ALL Jewish books are distorted? Isn't that kinda like saying THE Muslims are suicidal lunatics, or THE Muslims believe they will get 72 virgins in Heaven? Some Muslims do think like this and obviously many are even prepared to die as suicide bombers, but of course many aren't either. I expect the same goes for THE Jews - some did some things, many didn't. Unfortunately, throughout history many bigots have racists have used Jesus' death against Jewish people as though somehow they are/were all individually responsible.
Maybe understanding what Progressive Christianity actually is may help you to think about what you post here. I think you will find that many Progressive Christians (and others) will actually agree with a lot of the scholarship around the Bible and NT. Have a look at this thread perhaps:
-
18 hours ago, akay said:
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
fake text
It does not exist in ancient Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century
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.
Where do you get your sources from?
18 hours ago, akay said:They were only baptizing in the name of Christ...
Did they violate the teachings of Christ or were they ignorant of them?
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?
18 hours ago, akay said:Paul is considered the first person to have corrupted the religion of the Nasaara. Between 51 and 55 CE, the first council of the disciples - the Jerusalem Council – was held and was headed by Ya‘qoob ibn Yoosuf An-Najjaar, who was stoned to death in 62 CE. During this meeting they decided that in order to obtain a greater benefit they should exempt all non-Jews from being committed to the Sharee'ah of the Tawraah (Torah). They did so as this was the only way to convert them from worshipping idols, as a preliminary step, before compelling them to follow the Sharee'ah of the Tawraah. Furthermore, they approved of the prohibition of adultery, eating animals killed by strangling, blood and that which is sacrificed for idols. However, they permitted the consumption of alcoholic drinks, the flesh of swine and usury although these things are forbidden in the Tawraah.
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!
18 hours ago, akay said:The Dead Sea scrolls were mostly Jewish writings some of which were versions of the books that made it into the canonised Bible. That tells us exactly nothing about the veracity of what is in those writings however.
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 linksThe 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 answerYou 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.
-
7 hours ago, romansh said:
Again responsible is used in two senses - proximate cause, definitely responsible in this sense and morally, this one is a little more circumspect. Is an aggressive dog pathetic? We recognize that there are a myriad of antecedent causes here. What is different about a human being?
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.
-
16 hours ago, akay said:
Paul wasn’t Jesus’ ‘second-in-command.’ In fact, they never even met,
Yep, pretty well known.
16 hours ago, akay said:Pauline theologians labeled him the ‘son of God.’
The authors of Matthew and Luke also allowed Jesus to be called Son of God. They were not Pauline theologians.
16 hours ago, akay said:Nowhere in the scriptures can we deduce that the One God is an association of 3 Gods.
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.
16 hours ago, akay said:It doesn’t make sense that God sends countless Prophets like Noah, Abraham and Moses to tell people to believe in one God, and then suddenly sends a radically different message of the Trinity which contradicts his previous Prophets teachings. It is clear that the sect of Christianity who believed Jesus to be a human Prophet and nothing more, were following the true teachings of Jesus. This is because their concept of God is the same as that which was taught by the Prophets in the Old Testament.
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?
-
16 hours ago, Jim Wright said:
But, the commandments are given by unmerited favor solely for our benefit
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.
16 hours ago, Jim Wright said:You have received this gift of life and the freedom of choice by unmerited favor. You cannot know the giver or understand why it is given. Any trying to understand this giver will only lead to idolatry and taking the Lords name in vain.
Where do you get this rule set from? If we cannot understand the giver how can we take any name for it in vain?
16 hours ago, Jim Wright said:You are embedded in family relationships, parents, you and children, make the best of it.
Yep, agreed. That's life.
16 hours ago, Jim Wright said:Respect other people as having received the same amount of unmerited favor as you have.
Yep, another good rule to try and live by. Makes for a more harmonious society in general.
16 hours ago, Jim Wright said:The existential consequences of the is, the blessing and curse are a little more nuanced and will take further posts.
Okay.
-
14 hours ago, romansh said:
While I have some understanding of your point of view and even some sympathy for it I more see the violent response as a product of society that people find themselves in and the product of their genetics. I am reminded of the UK football gangs of the seventies and eighties. A human being's desire (chemistry) to conform is strong.
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?
-
9 hours ago, akay said:
Christians follow Paul, not Christ, but Muslims follow the teachings of all the prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, peace be upon them
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.
9 hours ago, akay said:Jesus prayed in prostration (Matthew 26:39), like the other prophets (see Nehemiah 8:6 with regard to Ezra and the people, Joshua 5:14 for Joshua, Genesis 17:3 and 24:52 for Abraham, Exodus 34:8 and Numbers 20:6 for Moses and Aaron). Who prays like that, Christians or Muslims?
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?
9 hours ago, akay said:Jesus fasted for more than a month at a time (Matthew 4:2 and Luke 4:2), as did the pious before him (Exodus 34:28, I Kings 19:, and as do Muslims in the annual fast of the month of Ramadan.
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.
9 hours ago, akay said:Jesus made pilgrimage for the purpose of worship, as all Orthodox Jews aspire to do. The Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca is well known, and is alluded to in the Bible (see The First and Final Commandment).
I pilgrimage to Bali as much as I can. Does that count? They make the best Nasi Goreng!
9 hours ago, akay said:Jesus taught the oneness of God (Mark 12:29-30, Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27), as conveyed in the first commandment (Exodus 20:3). Nowhere did he declare the Trinity.
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.
9 hours ago, akay said:Jesus declared himself a man and a prophet of God and nowhere claimed divinity or divine sonship. Which creed are the above points more consistent with—the Trinitarian formula or the absolute monotheism of Islam?
Blatantly incorrect according to the New Testament, but you seem to be solidly fixed on the contrary.
9 hours ago, akay said:Islam is not just another religion.
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.
-
8 hours ago, romansh said:
What about the Danish cartoons? The depictions of Mohamed were not meant to be disrespectful of Islam but were making political, social, and perhaps religious statements? To be fair the cartoonists were indifferent (to some degree) to the deeply held beliefs.
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.
-
2 hours ago, romansh said:
So what you appear to be saying is, Gulley is this guy on the internet with no special insights?
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.
2 hours ago, romansh said:Weyler, in his book/study also suggested Jesus said:
Seek the truth.
There is a light within; look and you will find it.
Know yourself.
When you find the light within, share it with the world.Commit fully now.
Act on your knowledge.
Your understanding is revealed in the fruits of your actions.I think you would enjoy The Jesus Sayings.
I think I would too. I'll look into it.
-
19 minutes ago, romansh said:
Yeah ... Weyler's take was Jesus had said don't trust those with spiritual pretensions. And here we are in a thread on the meaning of spiritual. While I agree with Gulley on the exploration of ideas and concepts, I don't get a sense he is doing that. OK I agree with you in his environment a limited God is probably out their everyday belief.
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.
-
8 hours ago, romansh said:
What I don't get why does he does not consider the possibility God does not exist? The meme is too difficult to shake?
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.
8 hours ago, romansh said:Don’t trust those with spiritual pretensions.
Question those who presume to speak for God.I certainly can follow these two guidelines.
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.
-
8 hours ago, romansh said:
I agree with you Paul. The book burners got the the result they wanted, but note the BBC are careful not to say explicitly who the rioters are. We seem to be OK to call out the far right for their nonsense, but we are reticent to callout Muslim rioters.
Agreed. Both sides are pathetic and both should be called out for their poor behavior.
8 hours ago, romansh said:The rioting is the far greater environmental hazard. While I see the far right as despicable (not that can they help themselves), I see religion, as practiced, especially Islam, far less tolerant. And the far right is exploiting this. Note Muslims (and the rest of us) cannot help themselves either. I can only hope for someone benevolent meme to win out.
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.
-
8 hours ago, akay said:
In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect
Forged books? In the Bible?Yes, they're called "pseudepigraphs".
8 hours ago, akay said:Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.
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.
8 hours ago, akay said:Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”
Yes, John as late as nearly 100CE.
8 hours ago, akay said:
Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”Yes, later Church fathers' assigned authorship. Maybe accurately, but who knows.
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, romansh said:
akay ... do you know what the word "discussion" means?
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.
-
17 hours ago, Jim Wright said:
The Commandments not divine law, they are existential facts of life. They bring with them a blessing or a curse, and these are real existential blessings or curses. The commandments are given wholely and solely for our benefit.
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
-
13 hours ago, akay said:
The truth is that Jesus preached the same message that the Prophets in the Old Testament preached.
I always think people run into difficulty when they try to tell me they 'know' what Jesus preached.
13 hours ago, akay said:Jesus did not say everything John said
Yet you quote John when it suits your argument. I think they call this Café Christianity.
13 hours ago, akay said:Christian scholars tell us that if Jesus had made all these fantastic claims about himself, the first three gospels would surely have recorded them.
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.
13 hours ago, akay said:Similarly, the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading How to Read Your Bible:
"It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them....The Church was so firmly convinced that ... Jesus ... taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus' sayings." (St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, p.23)
What we have in John, then is what people were saying about Jesus at the time John was written (about 70 years after Jesus was raised up). The writer of John simply expressed those ideas as if Jesus had said them. Rev.James Dunn says further in his book that, almost certainly,the writer of the fourth gospel "was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on." (Fhe Evidence/or Jesus, p. 43)
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.
13 hours ago, akay said:Adam and Eve were the first humans, according to the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions, and all humans have descended from them. As stated in the Bible, Adam and Eve were created by God to take care of His creation, to populate the earth, and to have a relationship with Him
According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.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.
-
8 hours ago, romansh said:
So you would you object to someone publicly burning Mein Kampf to antagonize an Aryan Nations person?
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
-
45 minutes ago, romansh said:
So what's the issue?
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.
-
5 hours ago, akay said:
everyone that was alive when Jesus walked considered him a Prophet.
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).
-
6 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:
On evil, a Christian told me that the reason I have trouble believing is that I haven't accepted my sinful nature. Well, I don't feel sinful. No parent wants their child to confess to a bad deed they didn't do. So I'm at a loss on that one.
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.
6 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:War, oh yes. In the Bible Jesus said that He came to bring peace, then He said He came not with peace, but with a sword. ???? Seems like if you want to believe in the Bible, you have to forget about consistency and just--I don't know. Just accept what's there? I may try that if I can't find another way. I'm not interested in all the human, Christian attempts to explain away these things. I'll listen to God if He's willing to tell me about it. I do have a small hope that this will happen.
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?
6 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:I've heard that thing about the horses. I didn't know it extended to cows. Do you suppose that's where the golden calf idols came from in the Old Testament? Somebody found some cow art.
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.
6 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:I had forgotten the Bible verse about "whoever is not against us." It's very comforting to me; thank you. I'm not against Christianity. I'm clinging to Christianity not just because of habit, upbringing, and culture, but also because of a person I know, and because of some religious-like experiences I've had. The person was my Uncle John, one of the nicest, most decent people I've ever known. He was a Christian. He made no secret of it, but he didn't beat you over the head with it. He just sat there, ready to help whoever needed it, radiating peace and acceptance of everyone. He wasn't stupid. So how did he get like that? I'd like to know, and maybe even be like that myself.
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.
6 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:The experiences I had: do you think I should write about them? On a separate thread? Although they're not very weird, and I already know some alternate explanations for them, I don't think anybody would believe them. When I hear anybody else making such claims, I wonder if they're faking or were coming down with a fever or something. But the experiences are real to me, and keep me hoping.
Sounds good - just start a thread yourself if you're happy to share. I for one would find it interesting, I'm sure.
-
7 hours ago, romansh said:
And then we have hate
No doubt we will have expert apologists to explain this away in terms of context etc. and give an opposite meaning. Ultimately we end up believing what we believe.
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'.
-
9 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:
Christianity is reportedly the largest religion, so seems to me the most likely to be right, and I was raised in that environment ("bloom where you're planted" thinking) and it attracts me for other reasons, too much to go into here. However, its message seems to me to be a lot about how you treat other people. For some people--this includes me--believing in the invisible* (see end of post) doesn't come easily. Does that make us the most evil of people? Skepticism is generally a good thing in the material world we seem to be living in. Why would God torment us for it?
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.
9 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:So maybe believing in someone watching over us is a good thing--unless you get into all this complicated stuff about being born sinful, and faith being a gift but if you don't have it you'd better make haste to get it because if you don't, bad news.
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.
9 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:What would be wrong, if God does exist but I can't know it, with following the most-repeated Biblical principles and feeling respectful towards what God or Gods may have given us life and a planet that supports us? If we don't know, should we try to lie to ourselves and other people? I keep an open mind and in fact ask God regularly to make it possible for me to know Him. I have a few faults, like gossip and not giving as much to charity as I probably could, but I'm working on those. I don't think I'm a terrible "sinner."
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.
9 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:The emphasis on one God only is also difficult for me to understand. How would I know? God could have a son if He wanted to. He could have 100 children, or 7.89 billion. Maybe He has brothers and sisters, etc. I don't see any disrespect in thinking those things possible. But maybe there's some advantage to US to believe that there's only one such being. It would make prayers simpler.
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.
9 hours ago, PinkAzalea said:Apologies to God if what I'm saying is wrong, but I'm trying to make sense of things that are puzzling to me. And if someone reading this knows that God is there, I'm not saying that you don't. I'm not saying that millions of Christians don't. I'm just talking about those of us who by our natures tend to question things, even if we'd rather believe them.
(* Or accessible to other senses, or easily reproducible. As best I know, I believe in electricity largely because 99% of the time, if I flip a switch, the light or fan or whatever comes on.)
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.
-
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
Book Burning
in General Discussion
Posted
Yes, we could debate all day on any definition of 'justified' violence. But I think there is a difference in violence to bring an end to violence (e.g war to end a holocaust) versus violence used because one is offended by a cartoon. I agree with you concerning the complexity of reality.
I was being specific about recognizing that words or pictures cannot physically harm us, not that there is no harm whatsoever when using words or pictures. Of course mental harm can be caused.
Morality is clearly subjective. And we are wise to live and let live wherever we can. But at some point the community does need to defend itself or risk non-existence. I'm not saying one is good and one is evil, but reality is that we all choose and usually that choice is ultimately linked back to survival.