Alternate history: What if Jesus wasent crucified?

[bearzinthehood]

rob47,  Christ isn't coming as a baby this time.  He's a king.  And, you won't be making jokes when he arrives.  He's too powerful to overlook and the miracles you'll see won't be little ones.  i take the book of revelations to be the awesome ending to a seeming 'novel' to us (except that it 's the novel of thousands of years of human history).  no matter what age we live in - there are constants.  the constants that i see are good/evil.  there is always an unseen 'battle' and the winning side is His.

The so called "Book of Revelations", is a historical text written by a man (John of Patmos), that opposed the Roman empire through symbolism.

It is nothing more, and nothing less.

[pianistimo]

there have been and are many ressurrection of that roman empire.

[stevie]

all this '2nd coming' and 'erection' stuff is getting me randy

hahaha, rob, legendary pix

[pianistimo]

stevie, i didn't say 'erection,' ok.  randy isn't what you should be when he comes, although there are many pianists that are have high needs in that department.  there is nothing wrong with that as long as you consider getting married.  my advice, would be for you to marry a self-proclaimed nyphomaniac.  Jesus isn't coming to judge people who have a lot of sex.  this is a misnomer that sex is bad.  it's just that the purpose of becoming close to one person is to make it a lifetime committment.  obviously it wouldn't work out too well for you if you found out they only wanted sex once a week. 

this day and age is full of stress and sex is a sure stress reliever.  but, i've found, so is Jesus Christ.  when you read his word it has a similar peacefulness to it.  as you find when you go out in the wilderness somewhere for solitude.  it's like it's just you and Him and his Love.  it is more than physical love -a nd more into the deepest needs of our soul.  sex fulfills our feelings on a superficial level, but we are reduced to needing much more of it.  one small ounce of the Holy Spirit fills you on a climactic level for a whole day.  you start seeing that God cares even when people don't sometimes.  and, then it's easier to give back even when sometimes you aren't getting anything.

[stevie]

i have to wonder if jesus was good in the sack, they say he could perform miraces....

ok, i noticed you didnt say erection...im just too randy, your sexiness isnt helping things

[pianistimo]

what if...this question was never asked.

[pianistimo]

stevie, you have to separate the holy realm and the physical.  jesus already knew what sex was like because he spoke it into existence (and the feelings to go with it).  it wasn't some kind of candy he didn't know about.  i think it's a very small euphoria compared with the spiritual realm, but we just can't understand that one yet.

[thalbergmad]

I is thinking of joining the Flagellants to prepare myself for the 2nd coming.

Does anyone know if they is still going??

Ta

Thal

[pianistimo]

flagullents?  sounds like a bunch of munroists marching up a hill.

[cfortunato]

daniel (in the book of daniel) was put into a hot firey furnace and WASNT burned up. 

Actually, it was Daniel's three friends, not Daniel.  Daniel was placed into the Lion's Den.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego went into the fiery furnace.

[pianistimo]

thanks!  it's been awhile since i read the story.  how did i get that so mixed up?  anyway, was just re-reading daniel's babylonian name and it was 'belteshazzar.'  suppose that if there is any history written about him - it would be under this assumed babylonian name.  sometimes i don't ahve time to read my own articles - and i have to take with a grain of salt that if there was proven to be a ruler nebuchadnezzar - and that the babylonian empire truly existed - then it wouldn't be out of the question that daniel did live and that the punishment for one crime dealt with a lion den and another a burning hot furnace.  typical of the types of things that are found within that empire, right?   

[timothy42b]

it's just that the purpose of becoming close to one person is to make it a lifetime committment. 

I agree with you.  (somewhat rare, I realize)

However, that is not at all what Paul declares in the NT, and he wrote most of it. 

Paul is very very clear.  The ONLY purpose of marriage is to keep weak people from committing sexual sins.  It is far better to remain unmarried and chaste, but if you can't control yourself then you should marry so you don't sin.  There is no place where he recognizes the loving committment you speak of.  There is no place where he recognizes sex as anything but sinful, though tolerable within marriage. 

So a serious alternate history question that Christians really ought to ask would be:  what would the history of the church, and the world, be like had not Paul himself been so sexually conflicted, and had not allowed it to creep into so much of his writing? 

[cfortunato]

thanks!  it's been awhile since i read the story.  how did i get that so mixed up?  anyway, was just re-reading daniel's babylonian name and it was 'belteshazzar.'  suppose that if there is any history written about him - it would be under this assumed babylonian name.  sometimes i don't ahve time to read my own articles - and i have to take with a grain of salt that if there was proven to be a ruler nebuchadnezzar - and that the babylonian empire truly existed - then it wouldn't be out of the question that daniel did live and that the punishment for one crime dealt with a lion den and another a burning hot furnace.  typical of the types of things that are found within that empire, right?   

Most scholars believe that Daniel was written between 167 and 164 BC, and is a form of what is called Apocalyptic Literature - written during the Jewish persecution by the Greek empire.  The idea is that it tells a story that takes place in the past for the purpose giving encouragement in a present crisis.  The basic argument for this is that such a type of literature existed, and the Book of Daniel tells the details of the Greek occupation with extreme detail and accuracy, while being fairly INaccurate about many things that took place during the Babylonian Empire, the time priod in which the book is set.  Also, in the Tanakh (the Jewish "Old Testament"), Daniel is included among "The Writings" - which is the latest section of the book.

One argument used by those who still hold to the idea that Daniel was written during or shortly after the Babylonian captivity is that an obscure historical detail is accurate:  the Babylonians didm indeedn execute by burning, while the Persians did so by feeding to lions.

The name "Bel-teshazzar" contains the linguistic element "Bel" - a Babylonian god.  The Bablylonian names of the Daniel's three friends - Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - also contain the names of Babylonian gods (Aku and Nego).   Which is, no doubt, why the book has them given these names by the Babylonians.

Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar, which is probably more accurate) certainly existed, but some of the details about his life given in Daniel seem to details from the life of another Babylonian king - Nabodinus - and not the historical Nebuchadnezzar.

[rob47]

rob47,  Christ isn't coming as a baby this time.  He's a king.  And, you won't be making jokes when he arrives.  He's too powerful to overlook and the miracles you'll see won't be little ones. 

You think it will be something like that scene in Aladdin when prince ali gets paraded into town with all the fanfares and seventy five golden monkeys and bakers and slaves and stuff?

[alejo_90]

pianistimo, what do you think of "The Da Vinci Code" ?

Well, I respect you very much as a person, and I respect your beliefs, but I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church.
I think it has been and it is corrupted, and it has completely misrepresented Jesus' message. And it has used it to control millions of people troughout the world. Well, that's just my opinion.

Best
Alex

[timothy42b]

pianistimo, what do you think of "The Da Vinci Code" ?

Well, I respect you very much as a person, and I respect your beliefs, but I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church.
I think it has been and it is corrupted, and it has completely misrepresented Jesus' message. And it has used it to control millions of people troughout the world. Well, that's just my opinion.

Best
Alex

That's not really an opinion, it's just catholic-bashing.  While I'm not one mysefl, I don't think it serves any purpose to bash the organization that ensured Christianity would survive all these centuries.  (Unless of course you are simply opposed to all Christianity.)  Your comment about "misrepresenting Jesus' message" though makes you sound like one of the recent fundamentalist types who seem to think Catholics are just slightly worse than Satanists, without having any actual knowledge about either group. 

The Da Vinci code is !fiction!  That there is considerable uncertainty over what actually happened back in the early days, and that few modern day Christians have any clue whatsoever how the Bible came to be compiled or our modern theology developed is of course fact. 

[lisztisforkids]

pianistimo, what do you think of "The Da Vinci Code" ?

Well, I respect you very much as a person, and I respect your beliefs, but I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church.
I think it has been and it is corrupted, and it has completely misrepresented Jesus' message. And it has used it to control millions of people troughout the world. Well, that's just my opinion.

Best
Alex

Last I heard the 'Da Vinci code' was a piece of fiction. 


Pianisimo,

   Were the church preaches love in Jesus's name, there is hate and fear, were they preach peace, there is war and scorn, were they preach to love your neighbor there is mistrust.


JESUS WOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOU.

[lisztisforkids]

Oh yeah, all this stuff about Jesus dying for our sins.... There have countless millions that have been tortured worse than him.

[thalbergmad]

Oh yeah, all this stuff about Jesus dying for our sins.... There have countless millions that have been tortured worse than him.

Yeh, a fair percentage by the Church.

[pianistimo]

what's interesting to me is that when Christ walked the earth, he went after the 'religious' and gave them a few choice words.  something like 'you wear long robes and say long prayers...but devour widows mites'  or something like that.  i'd say that in every church there are those that are in it for appearance sake.  only God knows those people.  we can accuse people of anything - but it often appears that Christians are not affected as much by accusation.  we are told not to value man's opinions, but God's.  so, even if we are judged by man to be sinners - we can be righteous before God with Christ's sacrifice and a good conscience (since He washes our sins and also says that He throws them as far as east is from the west - if we truly repent and turn from sin).

suppose that there has been religious persecution and religiously persecuted.  i think the religious persecution in this age is not so much between christians themselves because there has been a 'coming together' in the last 10 years so much that even christians themselves wonder.  it is God's way of preparing for the times that we are in.  He is mobilizing His own.  as a spiritual army.  but, we are not fighting with weapons, but the Spirit of God.  it is mightier than the sword.  and, His word stands forever.  that's beyond what we can conceive - but if we know now what is right - then we will be in good stead for the future - since it will be a much longer history than the known world.

this is my understanding so far - and i hope 'm correct.  not to win a war of words - but to bring hope to people who think 'woe is me, i'm a sinner.'  well, wooptee doo.  we're all sinners.  what is wrong is to stay that way. then when you are accused - you have no reply.  right?  but, if you take Christ's sacrifice and use it wisely (not wasting it on repeated sins - but changing your life to give back to Him) then you have hope.

also, i think anyone who's been tortured will say that mental anguish is just as bad as physical.  Christ sufferred both the physical AND mental throughout his life.  He was born ugly.  well, maybe not ugly - but nondescript.  we know this by some scriptures in isaiah that mention that he had no appearance that people would remember and say 'woh, there went a good looking man.'  in fact, he often used this to lose himself in a crowd.  also, he grew up in nazareth - and people said - 'can anything good come from there?'  his parents and relatives (excepting his mother and mary's mother) probably thought he was 'nuts' at first.  john, his cousin - was probably the only male friend that God made sure he had continuously throughout his lifetime.  that's all most people need - but Christ sufferred in all ways as we do - and i'm sure he wished he had more intimate friends.  people rejected Him so often, probably, that it wasn't a hurt as much when he was baptized and began his public ministry.  then, it was trying to escape being killed many times.  if one of us tried to live His life - we'd miserably fail from the pressure.  that is why God is God and can show us how to live in any condition we find ourselves in - because he first did it.  can you imagine being so poor that you ahve to be born in a manger for animals.  and, yet, He will return King of the Entire World.  this is quite amazing to me - and why He is considered a king of mercy - and peace.  he didn't say 'this is not fair.  i don't want to suffer for you.  i want the easiest way.  i think i'll take the kingdom now (which is what Satan offerred).'  he took pain and sufferring unimaginable (being that romans were cruel) and was praying for US the whole time - and probably not even for himself.  ask anyone who's been tortured if they could do that?!

[lisztisforkids]

Pianistimo, if what you say is true, then I would be very if I were you, careful. Because God would judge you accordingly....

[lisztisforkids]

Pianisimo, you still have not acknowleged your own hypocrisy, you have not acknowleged what has been done in Jesus's name... You are just rambling..

People like you frighten me very much.

[pianistimo]

Jesus said that 'many will come in my Name...'  but He only acknowledges those that are His own.  we won't know that until the tares and the wheat are separated at the judgement.  why are you telling me to be careful - when you have to worry also about yourself.  do you want to carry me on your back or something?  Christ already offers all of us a ride.  why would i worry if this or that denomination or people's is doing the will of God or not.  it is not my place to judge.  when God comes he will judge the world.  i hope that i will 'stand' at the judgement.

what is intersting is that even the prophets - when they felt near or close to the throne of God, prostrated themselves and couldn't get up (probably for fear and awe) until God told them to 'rise' and they were made holy in His presence.  ezekiel comes to mind - i think that the angel took a hot coal and spiritually significantly made ezekiels words (that he would speak to the people and to us through the bible) holy.  we can't make our words holy no matter how much we try.

lisztisforkids, i think that you think because christians sin - that they are not really christians and that they will suffer the same as the 'tares' spoken of in the bible.  but, if we have an ADVOCATE (just as in courts- with a lawyer) then we don't worry because He speaks for us and tells God the good that we have done (throwing out the bad - as we repent).  so what others don't forgive - He does!  this is a much mightier power that the power of ACCUSATION.  that is from satan.  he wants people to feel so bad about themselves or others and constantly accuses us day and night.

[prometheus]

She has been brainwashed by the virus of religion.

[timothy42b]

She has been brainwashed by the virus of religion.

This has been much on my mind as well.  I find myself pondering that as a serious question.  She does not, clearly CANNOT, think rationally about religious subjects.  She is also woefully lacking in some basic knowedge of the subject - the history and cultures of the times, the Bible, etc., but she is far from unique in this respect, most parishioners would be in the same boat.  And she is an adherent of some fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect.

The key question for me is this:  does this style of religion attract people like her?  Or does it PRODUCE them? 

Clearly not all denominations are equal when it comes to percentages of people who are similar. 

[pianistimo]

if you go through my answers and your own - you will find that i quoted scripture in a far more accurate way most of the time, imo.  it is because the bible is cross referenced.  if every word of God is true - then you can't say 'this part of the bible is true and this is not.'  i would say none of you are true theologians either (i never said i was a scholar). because some of you think that creation days are eons.  that is not 'evening and morning were the first day.'  so even though i may not be a scholar - i can read text.

perhaps the difference between us (and why you think i'm crazy) is that i take the bible literally and not figuratively.  there was a huge gap between the knowledge of the old testament people's and law and the new testament peoples and faith.  they work together, in my understanding.  the law shows us our weaknesses (just as piano teachers can do).  it doesn't mean we'll act (or play piano) perfectly - it just means that now we are aware of what we need to work on.  if you don't put in the time or effort - we are told in the parables that we are worthless workers.  there are many references to building talent - and doing something.  that is not strange religion.  it is to the point.

[pianistimo]

when i think about some of the questions/ideas, though, it makes sense that people wonder 'how can God create all of creation in six days?'  i think he planned through the ages not just for this physical creation but for the plan of salvation.  in the new testament it  mentions the 'first' adam and the 'second' adam.  God seems like a God of second chances.  He isn't just the ot angry God that people think is vengeful - but He created a way to overcome evil/sin by His own Son's sacrifice of himself as and example to us of love.

btw, i think the da vinci code is a much stranger view of religion than mine.  basically, it denies the true and real divinity of Jesus Christ and substitutes 'ideas' of man.  it IS fiction and nothing else.  i wouldn't even waste my time to read it to talk about it with others.  why eat garbage?

[lisztisforkids]

.  it IS fiction and nothing else.  i wouldn't even waste my time to read it to talk about it with others.  why eat garbage?

So is lagre parts of the Bible. Im not going to waste my time reading the Bible either. Your right, why would anyone want to eat garbage?

[prometheus]

Monotheists are atheists that make one exception.

[lisztisforkids]

Monotheists are atheists that make one exception.

Ironically, I view Atheism as a religon to.

[prometheus]

Then your view is wrong.

Atheism is not, and I repeat, is not believing that god does not exist. It is not believing.

Not believing anything. Not believing in Apollo, not believing in Enlil, not believing in Hunahpu, Odin, Osiris, Shiva, etc.

Not believing that Bush ordered bombs to be placed in the Twin Towers, not believing the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, not believing Elvis is still alive, not believing in Extra Terrestials visiting earth, not believing in ghosts, not believing in the tooth fairy, not believing in leprecons, gnomes, not believing in sprites or pixies that only show themselves when you believe in them.

An atheist does not believe something because it cannot be disproven. Most people are atheists on almost all topics. You don't believe in something because it has not been proven to be fundamentally false.

Most christians do this. They do not believe in things. They just make an exception; they suspend their disbelief.

Let's imagine what would happen if a christian wasn't an atheist on all other topics. They would believe everything. You can imagine and endless list of non-sense that we cannot prove to be false. A non-atheist believes all of these things. And that would be impossible to do.

[thalbergmad]

Monotheists are atheists that make one exception.

You can always rely on Prometheus for a great one liner.

[prometheus]

Yes, it kind of funny, isn't it?

I am trying to find out if someone used it before. I can't imagine no one has.

[thalbergmad]

not believing Elvis is still alive

I saw him eating a burger outside McDonalds in Clapham High Street.

[lisztisforkids]

Then your view is wrong.

Wait.. Im confused... So if in Atheist only beleives in things than can be proven than you have contradicted yourself thousands of times over in this forum.... Such as when you say you would be a fool to not beleive in Evoultion. But there is no 'proof' of evolution, yes evidence, but not proof. Just as many people like me beleive that there is evidence for a God, but no proof.

And when a Atheist makes a statement about something that is better than the other, or good and evil, like 'Stealing is wrong' than right there the Atheist has contradicted himself. Since good and evil cannot exist if there is no 'absolute truth' ... But surely you do beleive in a good and evil, I am sure you think it was evil of Hitler to murder 6 million human beings... So right there you have contradicted yourself.

True Atheism is the belief in nothing... No God, no Evolution, no good and evil. Nothing. Such blind faith in this beleif in nothing is wrong, and misguided. A religon were as the Atheist denys all other ideas contray to nothing.

[leahcim]

Yes, it kind of funny, isn't it?

I am trying to find out if someone used it before. I can't imagine no one has.

All over the place, Dawkins for one. Although it's written in reverse as "...I just believe in one fewer God than you do..."

[bearzinthehood]

Perhaps you were thinking of agnosticism prometheus?  Although in response to lisztisforkids, I would like to say that there are varying definitions of atheism.  While some do believe that godlessness implies immorality, this is not necessarily the case.  Disbelief in God does not necessarily preclude one from making moral judgements.  It simply means that these moral judgements are not made in fear of divine retribution, which in my opinion is a higher form of morality.

[prometheus]

That's because in the field of science there is no proof. Just as there is not in the field of justice.

Proof is something you find in math and logic. In science and justive you have evidence. Actually luckely the english language makes a difference between the two. Not all languages do. But this is just what is the point. Maybe I messed up a bit because my native language does not make this distinction.

The is no evidence for god. That is the point. Religious people can only claim their faith is based on a lack of proof god does not exist.
The lack of evidence supporting god makes people to assume god does not exist. Just as people do with many things that are not supported by evidence but cannot be disproved.

Now the evidence for evolution is very solid. It forces people of reason to assume it is true.

As for good and evil. Let me explain this. I guess that as a person who puts many restrictions on himself I can do this effectively to some extent, at least I hope.

I do not believe in good and evil in the religious sense. It would mean that good acts are those inspired by god and evil acts are those inspired by Lucifer (/Satan).
I do not think Hitler did what he did because of Lucifer. I think he believed he was doing something good. The problem I have with monotheistic evil is that it denies that humans can do 'evil' while not being aware of it. There is a Nobel prize winner, his name escapes me, that once said: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things, but for good people to do evil things it takes religion."

I do think that it is wrong to murder humans. I even think it is wrong to kill animals. But I do not believe that the world is divided in good and evil. And even if it were true, this is a dangerous idea. You can never label yourself as evil. So your opponent will be evil. In a case like this you do not even have to consider if your act is right or wrong. Naturally you are on the side of good. And that is the problem with morality and religion. You just learn what is good and what is evil and then you just adhere to it. You never have to consider if this is actually truely so.

Furthermore, the books of the bible are at least 2000 years old. The old testament is written in the bronze age by a civilisation more barbaric than the Taliban. I mean, the idea I can learn morality from them, even if they were inspired by god, is poposterous to me. The idea that I can only be moral through their 'wisdom' is even more absurd. And it is clear when you read the old testament. Even Pianistimo has once said that the Old Testament teaches immorality.

Then, about the monopoly of morality by religion, as believed by the pope. Apperently Benedictus believes that when it was not of his fear of god he would go out and rape and kill people. That is what it implies. Without god, or rather the fear of him, people have no morality at all. I mean, I doubt that the pope really believes this. No one can. And it is obviously the case. There is morality without religion. On the other hand, there is also immorality with religion.

But atheism does not take any stand on morality. So people can be incredible moral or immoral while being an atheist. You all know the examples.

Again, evolution does not require faith. There is evidence for evolution. Following upon evidence is not faith. It is called reason.
Also, it does not require faith to know that I do not have the right to take some elses life. If I had then there is a power structure. A power structure requires justification. Furthermore, no faith is needed to know that is is wrong to take someone elses life. I don't want someone to take my life from me. If something is bad to me it is generally also bad to someone else. Like Jesus taught in the bible, or rather is credited to Jesus. That snippet of wisdom requires no god or faith.

A lot of thinks are wrong. Religious people know what is right and wrong. They do not have to think about this. Atheists do need to think about this. They are critical about right and wrong. Atheism is progressive. Monotheism is conservative. Religion, at its core, is immoral. This does not mean that religious people are always immoral. Actually, I don't even think that the morals religious people uphold actually come from religion. Were it directly or indirectly. Morals are probably older than religion. I mean, even chimps have morals of some sort.

Why do I have morals? Because I want to be a 'good' person. I may not believe in 'good' or 'evil'. I do believe in 'right' and 'wrong'. And I have to constantly analyse and consider what is right and what is wrong. I don't want to suck up to god. I mean, if you are good if you want to suck up to god, how good are you really? It would be totally selfish. I want to be 'good' for the sake of goodness itself. I want to prove myself, not to god, but to myself. And I don't except to gain anything from it except satisfaction into who I am.

[prometheus]

bearzinthehood, actually there are many versions of atheism. My version of atheism is often labelled as nontheism. But I find some kinds of atheism puzzling. Why take a special case on god if you do not believe in one? Same for agnostic people. I mean, who is agnostic about the existance of Leprechaun? Why apply 'special logic' to this topic. I do not understand this.

[lisztisforkids]

Prometheus,


   First off, I beleive that there is enough firm evidence to say that in all likelyhood there is a God, Spirtual being, or 'something higher'. Following upon evidence is not faith, its called reason. 



Nobody learned basic morals (such as killing somebody is wrong) from the Bible or other religous texts. People inserted those Morals into those texts. You cant teach a man something is wrong when he already knows it is wrong. Those people that say they dont do immoral things because they fear the wrath of God are just silly. They dont do immoral things because it goes against our natural law of morals. If that person was an Atheist he would very, very likely have almost same morals as he would if he was religous. I can draw examples if you like.

I think that you have this mindset in your head that whenever somebody mentions 'Good', or 'Evil' you immediatley think that 'Good' implys God, and 'Evil 'Satan' in a religous probaly, Christian sense. But the concept and understanding of 'Good' and 'Evil' has been around since man turned from ape into the creatures we are today. So why sould 'Good' and 'Evil' have anything to do with your percerption of Religon?

 I do not understand how a Atheist can beleive something is 'Right' or 'Wrong'. Why would any thing be 'Right' or 'Wrong' to an Atheist? All of your morals would have to be artificially constructed and they wouldent be truer an any sense than what an Atheist would beleive in God.
   
 Someday in my life, I am going to have to confirm my beleifs from the ground up and something like Descarte did and start with nothing. Until then, im going to bed.

 To tired to write more, post tommorow. 

[prometheus]

First off, I am not aware of any reasonable evidence evidence for any god.

Well, you claim morals are products of religion. Most people that do don't believe morals are naturally imprinted in human nature by god. They believe that religion gives people a reason to act moral. In the end this must come back to having fear of god. Yes, it is silly. But there is no other reason.

Good and evil, why do I think of them as religious. Because they are religious ideas. Actually they are limited to the three big monotheistic religions. Other religions have other systems of morals. Ones that are more subtle or more relative. I don't really understand why you are so suprised at this. Maybe you don't understand what I mean with 'good and evil' and 'right and wrong'. I don't believe in it in the sense that the US is fighting on the side of good and that Iraq and Iran are fighting on the side of evil. There are plenty of people who believe this. They do this because of religion. Now just go and pick up an ancient history book. Who was on the side of good in the war between Rome and Carthage? Good and evil are absolute, cut in stone, they split the world in two, etc.

So what are the origins or morals? And are they really 'true'? Morals, according to modern science, are a product of evolution. Because humans are social creatures they are altruistic and adhere to social codes. Humans that work together, build strong relations with other humans, humans that share their food and water are more likely to survive that those that don't. And these morals aren't true in a black-and-white sense. They are just universal to all humans. In practice there is no real difference.

[timothy42b]

Most christians do this. They do not believe in things. They just make an exception; they suspend their disbelief.

Let's imagine what would happen if a christian wasn't an atheist on all other topics. They would believe everything. You can imagine and endless list of non-sense that we cannot prove to be false. A non-atheist believes all of these things. And that would be impossible to do.

Yes exactly, great point, but I'm not sure what side of it I'm on.

I consider myself a skeptic with one blind spot, and I try hard not to be irrational anywhere BUT in church. 

However this is not the most common approach, and I think a careful investigation would show that Christians in general ARE gullible about much of the rest of life, and the more fundamentalist their denomination, the more true this is. 

[pianistimo]

maybe instead of using the word gullible (although many may be) we should use the word willing to suffer for others.  to many, this means gullible. 

archeology is a 'science' and it has proven that sites in the bible are actual places.  evidence for the flood, and even before that - for the drought in egypt - and joseph saving the egyptians was hieroglyphed into a stone.  the rosetta stone and many other types of archeological discoveries made it possible to read these egyptian hieroglyphs with more accuracy.  the fact there were israelites that were slaves is not a much argued point.  neither is the idea of abraham - Jesus Chirst (the calendar counting Before Christ and After Death /Christ) - many catholic churches proclaim st. peter, st. paul  (allt he disciples of Christ) and claim they have relics.  how can so many historians and people be wrong - and 21st century revisionists be right? 

i think it's what information you are seeking.  if you are not seeking spirituality in the christian sense - you are not even looking for any proof.  why speak definately if you haven't studied the issue?  of course, this goes for any field and christians are not eliminated from being ignorant on other subjects as well.  for instance, if you grow up in a church that allows or doesn't allow birth control - you have an issue where some people say 'ooh, that person has so many children...they must be really ignorant - and others say 'they are so blessed to have a family so large.'  it's all a matter of perspective and what one considers ignorant in the first place.

for me, i thought that the fewer children, the better life for the ones that are there.  but, in actuality over the years i've learned to think a little differently.  so i would say i had a preconcieved notion of what the bible says about families and the roles that we play that we don't even know we do.  for instance, we used birth control - and thought we were so smart.  but, i have to admit - the bible is right about sons being 'arrows' around your table and those whose quiver is full are blessed.  (all your children for that matter). and yet, we don't want to have children that we can't properly care for.  so i'd say that if using birth control is a sin - then it's probably something Christ would forgive as a lesser sin (if you know what i mean).

christians are concerned not about 'knowing' everything perfectly - but living by faith.  God required many things of Christians in the past that weren't understood at first.  they were expected to learn obedience.  even Christ learned obedience, it says, by the things that he SUFFERRED.  suffering for other people seems to be quite ignorant...and probably not very many christians do it that well anyway - but at least we have an example and it is not of a good looking savior, that went to business or law school, had many rich friends, and lived off his retirement income for 50 years (although it wouldn't be a terrible life if you were able to help others).  he was poor and still served others.  what i find interesting is that he was interested in quality clothing, though, because it is said in the bible that the roman's cast lots for his clothing.  but, it was basically the clothes on his back.  he wasn't excessive.

getting back to the original ideas here - hmm what was the original question.  oh...faith and reason.  i think prometheus said it right.  it's two different ways of thinking.  although i do think personally that right and wrong exist.  of course, that brings in sin.  and, thus our need for forgiveness and Christ's atoning sacrifice.  that is not exactly understandable (how we can be 'born again' of spirit) - but is something i take on faith.  that i will obtain the 'everlasting life' that the egyptians thought they already had and would carry their goods with them when they died across the river styx.  to believe in an 'immortal soul' is a very old concept - and yet - we read in the bible 'the soul that sins...it shall die.'  if we know we will die from sin - why not regenerate with acceptance of our guilt, repentance, and baptism for a better future with God (and not death).

[alejo_90]

https://www.onlinejournal.com/TheocracyAlert/html/092705seesholtz.html

pianistimo, that's the people your beloved church defends.

And this is not an isolated case. I saw on TV that in Brazil, there are at least 4000 cases of priest sexual abuse that hadn't been treated, and 170 that are currently being treated.

Best
Alex

[alejo_90]

Christ isn't coming as a baby this time. 

Then I can imagine him coming down from the skies, with little nude angels playing trumpets around him. After he comes down, he'll take his cross-shaped M16 and will fly around the world killing the sinners (in other words, 99.8% of humanity) Then he'll open a hole on the earth, where all the damned souls will fall to meet Satan. After that, he'll make all the saved people drink Red-Bull, so they'll grow wings, and fly with him back to Heaven.

Do you believe all that Mary got pregnant by the Holy Spirit crap ?
I think she spent a happy night with his husband, and then she got pregnant.
What's wrong with the idea? Nothing
Well acording to catholicism, is that Mary got pregnant without getting stained with sex. (Virgin Mary?) Since catholicism has a peculiar disgust for sexuality in general.

And about the Da Vinci code, of course it is fiction, but there's a lot of truth behind the story. The theory of The Mary magdalene-Jesus relationship has been studied by some philosophers like Carl G. Jung.
My point was that if any well devoted christian-catholic would have found that movie disgusting, a blasphemy, an insult to Jesus, God and the Holy Church, etc, etc.

And maybe I do think The Church is worse than satanists, just look all the crap the Church has done trough history (holy inquisition for example). All the people that has been killed in the name of God. I don't think that was Jesus' message at all.

Best
Alex

[lisztisforkids]

Then I can imagine him coming down from the skies, with little nude angels playing trumpets around him. After he comes down, he'll take his cross-shaped M16 and will fly around the world killing the sinners (in other words, 99.8% of humanity) Then he'll open a hole on the earth, where all the damned souls will fall to meet Satan. After that, he'll make all the saved people drink Red-Bull, so they'll grow wings, and fly with him back to Heaven.


Best
Alex

 


  Lol.

[timothy42b]

maybe instead of using the word gullible (although many may be) we should use the word willing to suffer for others.  to many, this means gullible. 

archeology is a 'science' and it has proven that sites in the bible are actual places.  evidence for the flood, and even before that - for the drought in egypt - and joseph saving the egyptians was hieroglyphed into a stone. 

Maybe gullible is a bit on the offensive side, you can suggest a better one if you'd like. 

Many people when they get one of those emails telling them they can get $20 million from Nigeria swallow it whole.  Others think "wait a minute, I'm not sure this really makes sense."  The same is true of urban legends, of advertising, of new age and occult beliefs, etc.  There are people who never engage their brain, and there are people whose BS meter goes off.  When religion is universal in a culture, you find both types of people;  when not, I suspect the religions select for the gullible end of the spectrum.  Some Christian denominations (Catholic, Anglican, etc.) promote engaging the brain, education, scholarship, etc.;  some (evangelical and fundamental Protestant) seem to fear and distrust this. 

There is ZERO geological evidence for a global flood.  If God sent a flood he carefully erased the evidence.  At one time (200 years ago) pretty much all geologists WERE Christian, and actively searched for evidence.  They never found any.  And had the integrity to admit it and move on. 

[pianistimo]

how do you think the grand canyon formed?  i suppose that you say it existed before the flood.  but, that is the general consensus by some.  the bible is wrong.  the earth is this and this years old.  well, geological records show that perhaps portions of this earth that were shaped are older than the flood - but there definately are portions of this earth that show a POWERFUL rush of water to create canyons such as these.  just because there are layers that are deeper that came before - doesn't mean that what's on top wasn't carved by a flood which covered the entire earth.

do you know why we even have glaciers?  that is the reason.  God makes things and regenerates them.  sure there was ice before - but it also made more.  how can you explain the polar ice caps not melting before NOW.  it is because God regenerates through using water in many ways.  the flood was also a warning.  noah told people that they should turn from sin and turn to God.  of course, back then, people were as skeptical as today.

i have not said that people should go to any denomination, alejo_90.  i think that you misinterpret my messages.  if you think that the catholic faith is not for you - why bash it.  why not just do what you understand to be true.  you may as well lump everyone who is christian into the same doctrines.  but, many split years ago.  this is an age old question. what is truth?  as you say - (and it goes for any church) - you cannot believe anything that is untrue.  if you don't believe people burn in hell - but are rather burned up (completely) as revelations mentions a 'second death' - then don't go for the dante version.  don't go for the da vinci code if you don't believe that mary magdalene was a girlfriend (more than friend) of Jesus Christ.  don't believe that priests cannot marry if you see that it doesn't lead to godliness. 

what i think is interesting is that there are sincere believers in many places.  i don't think God chooses favorites because of knowledge only - but what we do with our knowledge.  even if your doctrine is somewhat wrong - if you do right - will you be judged harshly?  that's God's domain to judge...so if 'mother' theresa helps the poor - will she be judged for being one of the peoples that venerates the virginity of mary and possibly the idea that sex is wrong.  how should i know?  i think that Jesus did speak about this when someone in a crowd said, 'blessed be the womb that bore you...' and he responded 'blessed are they that hear the Word of God and do it.' 

imo, sex was created good and used for evil.  we are all tempted by it in one way or another - so it is perhaps the most powerful of temptations that we know.   but, originally, it was not part of the 'original sin.'  just because you know you are naked doesn't mean that God condemns sex.  right after he made the animals and then man - he said 'be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.'  how in the world can you do that if you don't have sex with your wife/husband.  the type of relationship that he was blessing was a Godly relationship that placed Christ as the head of the man - carrying certain responsibility to teach the man, then the man was placed as the head of the wife to protect and teach her and help her stay within the guidelines of God, the wife was to ld to obey (listen to) her husband and honor and respect him, and the children were told to obey their parents in 'everthing.'  this is not a system that is respected today.  it is not very 'democratic' to our way of thinking.  does this mean that Christians who believe this are gullible or blessed? 

i think obedience always brings blessing - even when there is sufferring to learn what is right along the way.  for instance...if you wonder why so many divorces - it is probably that we never learned what marriage was for in the first place.  perhaps instead of fulfilling our own desires first, we are supposed to think of others.  just because we are temporarily in a position of authority over others doesn't mean that we should be harsh - but rather do as Christ did and suffer for them and take care of them like a shepherd takes care of sheep.  gently bringing them continuously back (by being gentle) instead of pushing them away.  in my own life - when i try to discipline my children by speaking harshly - it never goes anywhere - but if i try to be an example and be kind and gentle and forgiving - it is a longer lasting discipline.  i don't think discipline is understood today in the manner that it used to be.  i think it used to be 'teaching.'  how to do this and that .  basically putting it in a positive light.  and Christ said about the prodigal son that his father had a big party when he returned and did right.  so we should treat our own children - to celebrate the good in them and be forever patient.

[bearzinthehood]

how do you think the grand canyon formed?

Not by a flood...

[timothy42b]

Not by a flood...

Truly, you have a way of getting to the essence quickly and succintly. 

Bravo. 

When I was a child I was of course taught the flood story in Sunday School.  But I was also taught that the Earth was created in its present form, complete and perfect.  Surely God wouldn't have made mistakes or half done creations.  (yeah, I know, don't call me shirley.  or truly.)  This business about trying to say a global flood actually shaped landforms is relatively recent. 

And sad.  Only people who were never issued a BS meter can possibly buy that stuff.  I mean, come on, we know about plate tectonics, we know how mountains are made and continents move.