|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 28, 2023 17:43:02 GMT
Paul never converted to “Christianity.” He views The Way as the bonafide Jewish Apocalypse as preached by outlier Jews like Jesus who Paul believes to be the first human being to be risen from his earthly tomb. Paul says clearly he is a Jew and could be nothing else, but he doesn’t think the Resurrection of the Dead is limited to Jews only as Jesus did. I'm using the words "Conversion" and "Christianity" very loosely here. I simply mean that he publicly identified as someone who accepts "the Gospel" as truth. Obviously it's not a "conversion" since he still identifies as Jewish. But this would theoretically be true of the multitudes of Jewish disciples who Christ supposedly preached to. They were "Christians" in the sense that they were following the religion based on Jesus Christ being the Jewish messiah. But my point is that all of them were actually following PAUL because none of those stories are true - and Paul made most of it up (with help from others who believed him). The “gospel” at the point only was probably the “Q” source or a proto-Mark, possibly only oral. It’s doubtful Paul read or heard any of the actual gospels as published much later in the canonized church Bible. The Christians who remained Jews were called the Ebionites.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 28, 2023 17:55:03 GMT
I'm using the words "Conversion" and "Christianity" very loosely here. I simply mean that he publicly identified as someone who accepts "the Gospel" as truth. Obviously it's not a "conversion" since he still identifies as Jewish. But this would theoretically be true of the multitudes of Jewish disciples who Christ supposedly preached to. They were "Christians" in the sense that they were following the religion based on Jesus Christ being the Jewish messiah. But my point is that all of them were actually following PAUL because none of those stories are true - and Paul made most of it up (with help from others who believed him). The “gospel” at the point only was probably the “Q” source or a proto-Mark, possibly only oral. It’s doubtful Paul read or heard any of the actual gospels as published much later in the canonized church Bible. First of all, let's keep in perspective the Q source (presuming it exists) would count as evidence that at least two of the synoptic gospels are complete bullshit. All of the Gospels contradict each other, but the synoptic Gospels are obviously stealing from the same source. I'm discounting the book of John altogether since it's the most obvious fictional work. John is non-contemporary work that plaigerizes from the other Gospel accounts just enough so as to pretend to be credible when it deviates from the fundamental nature of Christ. It is wholly inconsistent with the themes of the rest of the Gospels. Mark is the oldest Gospel, which on the surface might give you a reason to believe that it's the most accurate Gospel to the Q source. But Mark also has the most known forgeries in it, including two different endings written by multiple authors! So just how accurate can it be? We don't know what the Q source is, when it was originally written (except that it predates Mark), or who authored it. So, question: assuming it even exists, how do we know that the Q source wasn't the testimony of someone who was influenced by Paul?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 28, 2023 18:29:15 GMT
The “gospel” at the point only was probably the “Q” source or a proto-Mark, possibly only oral. It’s doubtful Paul read or heard any of the actual gospels as published much later in the canonized church Bible. First of all, let's keep in perspective the Q source (presuming it exists) would count as evidence that at least two of the synoptic gospels are complete bullshit. All of the Gospels contradict each other, but the synoptic Gospels are obviously stealing from the same source. I'm discounting the book of John altogether since it's the most obvious fictional work. John is non-contemporary work that plaigerizes from the other Gospel accounts just enough so as to pretend to be credible when it deviates from the fundamental nature of Christ. It is wholly inconsistent with the themes of the rest of the Gospels. Mark is the oldest Gospel, which on the surface might give you a reason to believe that it's the most accurate Gospel to the Q source. But Mark also has the most known forgeries in it, including two different endings written by multiple authors! So just how accurate can it be? We don't know what the Q source is, when it was originally written (except that it predates Mark), or who authored it. So, question: assuming it even exists, how do we know that the Q source wasn't the testimony of someone who was influenced by Paul? That’s certainly possible, in which case, it’s Paul who pretty much invents Jesus. Even so, Paul leans heavily on the Jewish Apocalypse prophecies as misinterpreted from the Books of Isaiah, Daniel, etc, running rampant in the pre-Jesus era, see the Dead Sea Scrolls, as foretelling a coming World Shift on the order of The Flood. That’s what the big fight was about at the time, not whether Jesus was a god or not. With Jesus’ resurrection, this was the “proof” Paul needed the Apocalypse was for real and had begun. Jesus had been chosen as a righteous Jew and God divinized Jesus upon his Baptism. There were other early Christian who preached this doctrine, but was later shutdown by RCC. To obtain a bodily resurrection was whole point of getting baptized by preachers like John. The Way originally had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins to save one’s spiritual soul from automatically going to an eternal Hell because of physical human corruption. Jews didn’t even believe in souls or an afterlife the same way as Christians later did, so there’s no reason to think Jesus or the first Jewish Christians did either. It was a reconstitution of the physical body, or “risen” body they expected to receive upon death, the same as Jesus’ resurrection. In other words, Paul himself thought after he died, he would come back to life on this Earth and not directly go to Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 28, 2023 18:43:20 GMT
Google the Malankara Orthodox Church, & any source that you will find online will tell you that the Church was founded when St.Thomas the Apostle went to India. They are even called "The St. Thomas Christians." If you want to express or refute that, then you, yourself will have to come up with an explanation as to how Christianity entered into India - a staunchly predominate Hindu country, which even drove out Buddhism - 2,000 years ago. Roman Christian merchants living in the trading cities. This is how Christianity spread from Palestine to Italy. Paul preached The Way as he sold canvas as tent maker. St. Paul was only just one missionary. He alone could not have spread the new faith as widely as it became. The Orthodox Church in India goes all the way back to First Century AD. If Roman Christian merchants had did it, it wouldn't have been until a few hundred years later.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 28, 2023 19:05:20 GMT
Last time I checked ... the story of St. Paul going after Christians is in the NT, in particular in the Book of Acts Cool. Who exactly wrote the Book of Acts (and when was it written)? Back to St. Thomas: Orthodox Churches are just like the Catholic Church: They have Apostolic Succession. The Greek Orthodox trace their lineage to St. Andrew the brother of St. Peter; the Coptic Orthodox trace their Popes to St. Mark the Evangelist; and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox, aka the Indian Orthodox Church, traces its lineage to St. Thomas. That's NOT what I asked you. I don't give a rats fuck about where any religious denominations claims it traces its roots too. I asked you, where did you HEAR that Thomas "traveled to India" to preach the Gospel. Is that written in ANY Gospel account, New Testament scripture, or contemporary accounts? Yes or no? St. Luke, & you already know that. For St. Thomas going to India: Contemporary sources. Acts Of St. Thomas The Apostle
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 28, 2023 19:14:10 GMT
Roman Christian merchants living in the trading cities. This is how Christianity spread from Palestine to Italy. Paul preached The Way as he sold canvas as tent maker. St. Paul was only just one missionary. He alone could not have spread the new faith as widely as it became. The Orthodox Church in India goes all the way back to First Century AD. If Roman Christian merchants had did it, it wouldn't have been until a few hundred years later. He didn’t. He set up church missions that took the message to the same streets after he left, just like proselytizing is done today. He prob wrote hundreds, if not thousands of letters to these churches. The only thing that made a person a pagan was being born, period. So was there no reason to convert Christians into paganism, because the 1st and 2nd pagans did not see the Christians as not being pagan like themselves, that is, human creatures expected to sacrifice to gods in exchange for the god’s protection…sounds like a mafia racket. And one cult was good as another. A lot of the converts left, but enough stayed and tended to convert their families, friends, business acquaintances, etc. Evangelicals proselytize Catholics away from the Church, but you can proselytize right back at them. However, once a pagan was converted to Christianity, that was one less pagan, but one more Christian. But we also know from even the NT, but more so from later church writers like Augustine, going full Christian wasn’t something most converts did right off the bat, there was a long shack down period of people practicing both Christianity and still sacrificing to their favorite deities just in case. It wasn’t until integration of pagan deities as the saints, particularly Mary as a Mother of a God, and incorporating pagan rituals and holidays as Christian feasts, did paganism fade out. Even then, a lot of pagan gnostic theology had to be weeded from the original Greco-Roman Christian core established in the 4th century.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 28, 2023 23:32:23 GMT
St. Luke, & you already know that. Correct. And who was Luke a disciple of again? Who was Luke most influenced by? That’s nothing more than a cann’d Catholic Church answer. What “contemporary source”? Be specific. Can you name the source?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 28, 2023 23:34:14 GMT
St. Luke, & you already know that. Correct. And who was Luke a disciple of again? Who was Luke most influenced by? That’s nothing more than a cann’d Catholic Church answer. What “contemporary source”? Be specific. Can you name the source? All of the Apostles. The Church Fathers, the Apostles, etc.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 29, 2023 0:01:16 GMT
Correct. And who was Luke a disciple of again? Who was Luke most influenced by? That’s nothing more than a cann’d Catholic Church answer. What “contemporary source”? Be specific. Can you name the source? All of the Apostles. The Church Fathers, the Apostles, etc. I’m assuming that was intended to be an answer to the FIRST question only. In any case…the correct answer is PAUL! So basically, you have a story about Paul supposedly persecuting Christians, which seems to originate from Paul himself. How convenient! There’s no actual evidence that this ever happened, it’s just something he claimed. Just like his claim that he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, again with ZERO witnesses to corroborate his story - how convenient. Paul was a con man and the evidence seems to indicate that Luke writes what Paul tells him to write. There’s no reason to believe that Paul ever saw Jesus anymore than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found golden tablets, or that Muhammad received special revelation from Allah. It’s all different versions of the same bullshit from con men taking advantage of the religiously naive.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 29, 2023 1:55:26 GMT
It's because Christianity spread all over, with or without Thomas. You haven't given any sources except websites and I'm pretty sure they aren't 2000 years old. That's because the Apostles "went out into the world to preach to all nations & Baptize them in the Name Of the Father, and Of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit (St. Matthew chapter 28, verse 19)." And it is pretty hard not to give you a website, as a source, seeing as you & are both conversing on a website. You misunderstand, I believe there are sources that make your claims, the question is whether they are reliable. I said they're not and you have yet to counter.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 29, 2023 8:59:52 GMT
What is it about Jesus that you would consider him as villainous as those three? Not arguing, just curious. I’ll begin my answer simply by quoting words attributed to Jesus, without any “interpretation” to poison the well. You can drawn your own moral conclusions from these statements. I think you’re taking most of those quotes slightly out of context. Can I give my interpretation? This is a sort of enacted parable. The fig tree is a metaphor for the nation of Israel, and can also in a sense represent every individual’s personal relationship with God. The fig tree bore leaves too early in the season, but could not, or would not, bear fruit in kind. Fruitlessness leads to judgement. In other words, it’s smarter to fear God, the judge, who has the authority to send your soul and body to a burning hell. As opposed to a human prosecutor who can only harm the body. This is a warning, not a threat. Salvation is pretty simple, believing in Jesus simply means to trust him and be committed to him as your Lord and savior. If practiced properly this generally brings peace, joy and hope. Unfortunately many people have pre-conceived ideas that getting saved is difficult and see it as a major chore. Christ is quoting the OT. The point is to condemn the Pharisee’s hallow tradition as hypocrisy. The “sword” here symbolises the gospel, which by its nature will divide people. Some will hear it and believe, some will reject it and oppose it. This is a warning of the consequences of following Christ. We’re to expect constant conflict ie strained family relationships, shunning by friends, persecution and even martyrdom. We see evidence of all of this taking place not just today but for the past 2000 years. Again not to be taken literally. Basically if even your family want to stop you of pursuing eternal life, and you forsake them in this respect, you will be rewarded. This is an inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled, which doesn’t fade away, reserved for us in heaven, when all other inheritances on earth are corruptible, defiled, fading and perishing. It’s a no-brainer Gotquestions.org answers this best… “ 2) God could compensate for people’s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100 percent of the time. God would stop a drunk driver from causing an automobile accident. God would stop a lazy construction worker from doing a substandard job on a house that would later cause grief to the homeowners. God would stop a father who is addicted to drugs or alcohol from doing any harm to his wife, children, or extended family. God would stop gunmen from robbing convenience stores. God would stop high school bullies from tormenting the brainy kids. God would stop thieves from shoplifting. And, yes, God would stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings. While this solution sounds attractive, it would lose its attractiveness as soon as God’s intervention infringed on something we wanted to do. We want God to prevent horribly evil actions, but we are willing to let “lesser-evil” actions slide—not realizing that those “lesser-evil” actions are what usually lead to the “greater-evil” actions. Should God only stop actual sexual affairs, or should He also block our access to pornography or end any inappropriate, but not yet sexual, relationships? Should God stop “true” thieves, or should He also stop us from cheating on our taxes? Should God only stop murder, or should He also stop the “lesser-evil” actions done to people that lead them to commit murder? Should God only stop acts of terrorism, or should He also stop the indoctrination that transformed a person into a terrorist? “
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 29, 2023 9:44:34 GMT
You haven’t yet given a good reason as to why though. Because neither you (nor anyone else) has ever given a good reason why I should accept one as historical. Telling me that it was intended to be accepted as historical doesn’t justify the position that it IS historical. The truth of a proposition stands independent from what anyone asserts, believes, or intends regarding that proposition. There is a an abundance of good apologetics work out there for Christ. But I suspect you’ve already made up your mind. The problem for your claim though is that it ignores certain important facts of history. There were already Christians prior to Paul who were making bold claims about Christ. Fundamental Christian doctrines such as God had raised Jesus from the dead for our salvation etc. if Paul was the inventor of Christ/Christianity? Who was he persecuting before his conversion? There would have been no Christians to punish. Did Paul know he would be “venerated as a Saint” by the Roman church? Was that in his thinking as a motivating factor? His writings are part of it yes, but so what? How is that “increasing power”? Your claims here are a bit ridiculous, no offence. Not only did Paul have nothing to gain, in this life at least, but he in fact had everything to lose. We’re talking about someone who was stoned and left for dead, beaten, flogged, shipwrecked and eventually beheaded for becoming a follower of Jesus. Contrast this to his life before conversion. Paul was a roman citizen, a huge privilege many Jews did not have. He was highly educated in the Law and likely financially well off. He was a Pharisee among Pharisees and was very high up in the order of Jewish religious leaders of his day. You think he gave all that up to “increase power” as a Christian? It makes absolutely no sense. “More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,”Philippians 3:8 “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.”Philippians 1:21
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 29, 2023 10:51:43 GMT
I think you’re taking most of those quotes slightly out of context. Can I give my interpretation? Please do! This is a sort of enacted parable. The fig tree is a metaphor for the nation of Israel, and can also in a sense represent every individual’s personal relationship with God. The fig tree bore leaves too early in the season, but could not, or would not, bear fruit in kind. Fruitlessness leads to judgement. Okay, firstly - the cursing of the fig tree is not a "parable". A parable is a fictional story that Jesus tells intended to symbolically represent an idea or moral lesson for the disciples. And scripture is usually very clear about labeling these stories "parables" and Jesus tends to explain the parable after telling the story (when prompted by the disciples). You implied that I'm taking it out of context, but the context of the story of is this event occurs as part of a road trip Jesus is taking from Bethany to Jerusalem. It's presented as a literal account of something he is actually doing, not as part of a story about other fictional people. There's no obvious moral lesson here and he's not imparting any instruction onto the disciples. So it really makes no sense to interpret it as a parable. He's hungry on the way to Jeruselum and finds no figs on a tree enroute, so he curses the tree. Then they reach Jerusalem and he overturns tables in the temples because they are exchanging money in God's house. To say that the fig tree is a metaphor for something is reading in to the scripture. This is made worse by the fact that you also state that it can "represent" something else. That's a huge problem because if a metaphor can represent more than one thing, then it can literally mean ANYTHING. It's not a clear metaphor if it can have multiple interpretations, and pointing out that it can is a good reason to think that it's not actually a metaphor at all. While I guess you could try to link the two parts of the story so that one directly relates to the other, it's a bit of a stretch to do so as there is nothing obvious in the text that points to that. So I don't think that I'm taking that out of context; I think that you are imparting context that isn't there. In other words, it’s smarter to fear God, the judge, who has the authority to send your soul and body to a burning hell. As opposed to a human prosecutor who can only harm the body. This is a warning, not a threat. False dilemma; it's BOTH. When you "warn" someone about the thing that YOU are going to potentially do to them, that's called a "threat". That's why mobsters say "I'm warning you" when issuing ultimatums to their potential victims! This is no different. Whether it's "smart" or not to comply with the person who holds a gun to your head is completely besides the point. We are evaluating the moral character of the person issuing the threat. The conclusion is that it's EVIL! To intimidate people into worship by threaten them with a judgement if you don't fear them is immoral. "Fear" is not a rational pathway to love or respect! Salvation is pretty simple, believing in Jesus simply means to trust him and be committed to him as your Lord and savior. If practiced properly this generally brings peace, joy and hope. Unfortunately many people have pre-conceived ideas that getting saved is difficult and see it as a major chore. That's interesting because I would say that you have a pre-conceived idea that salvation is pretty simple. Except that we know it's not given that there are a thousand different denominations of Christianity which all make different claims about what is required for salvation. Christianity "practice properly" is something Christians can't even agree to. Believing doesn't "simply mean" what you said, that's just what believing simply means to you. To other Christians, believing simply means other things. Christ is quoting the OT. The point is to condemn the Pharisee’s hallow tradition as hypocrisy. I'm aware of that, but you are missing my point! The relevant point here is that putting your children to death because they break the commandments is IMMORAL. The fact that Jesus is advocating that by appealing to the law proves that he is immoral too. Yes, he is pointing out their hypocrisy - but he's doing that by appealing to his own supposedly "moral law". And this is something Christians gloss over and ignore for the sake of convenience. Pointing out that other people are hypocritical by arbitrarily disregarding immoral laws doesn't absolve Jesus of endorsing the immoral laws in the first place. The “sword” here symbolises the gospel, which by its nature will divide people. Some will hear it and believe, some will reject it and oppose it. This is a warning of the consequences of following Christ. We’re to expect constant conflict ie strained family relationships, shunning by friends, persecution and even martyrdom. We see evidence of all of this taking place not just today but for the past 2000 years. Thank you, I'm aware of that too. I'm accusing Christ of spreading divisive message which will necessarily lead to conflict between family. A message in which he venerates himself as "more important" than the people we actually love. Again not to be taken literally. Basically if even your family want to stop you of pursuing eternal life, and you forsake them in this respect, you will be rewarded. This is an inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled, which doesn’t fade away, reserved for us in heaven, when all other inheritances on earth are corruptible, defiled, fading and perishing. It’s a no-brainer I agree that anyone who accepts this as rational has no brain. But my point is it's an immoral teaching. To promise someone a "reward" if they agree to abandon their family in order to suck your dick is immoral. Any being who demands worship is unworthy of it. And any being who expects one to abandon their family for the sake of their own personal rewards is immoral. “ 2) God could compensate for people’s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100 percent of the time. God would stop a drunk driver from causing an automobile accident. God would stop a lazy construction worker from doing a substandard job on a house that would later cause grief to the homeowners. God would stop a father who is addicted to drugs or alcohol from doing any harm to his wife, children, or extended family. God would stop gunmen from robbing convenience stores. God would stop high school bullies from tormenting the brainy kids. God would stop thieves from shoplifting. And, yes, God would stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings. While this solution sounds attractive, it would lose its attractiveness as soon as God’s intervention infringed on something we wanted to do. We want God to prevent horribly evil actions, but we are willing to let “lesser-evil” actions slide—not realizing that those “lesser-evil” actions are what usually lead to the “greater-evil” actions. Should God only stop actual sexual affairs, or should He also block our access to pornography or end any inappropriate, but not yet sexual, relationships? Should God stop “true” thieves, or should He also stop us from cheating on our taxes? Should God only stop murder, or should He also stop the “lesser-evil” actions done to people that lead them to commit murder? Should God only stop acts of terrorism, or should He also stop the indoctrination that transformed a person into a terrorist? “ Oh my god, this response is riddle with fallacy on top of fallacy. There is so much question begging here its embarrassing! I don't care what immoral people find "attractive", I only care about what moral people find attractive. If a rapist happens to be pissed off because God is stopping him from raping - then who gives a fuck? Why should we care about what's attractive to a rapist? Whether he should stop sexual affairs or pornography doesn't concern me because both of those things are amoral issues. The fact that you personally think pornography is immoral is irrelevant; you cannot objectively demonstrate that it is. The fact that you are personally against marital infidelity is irrelevant to the swinging couple in an open marriage. If it's not immoral to them, then it shouldn't be considered immoral to anyone. Not all affairs result in a victim. My goal is to reduce suffering, and if I was an all-powerful, all-seeing God then my goal would be to prevent all suffering. I wouldn't allow suffering to happen because some of the people who cause it find me taking away their ability to inflict it unattractive! That is a pathetic excuse for your god's failure to act. The point of bringing up God's failure to stop child rape is to show that he is a moral monster. Because, if I could stop a child from being raped, but I didn't - then you would call me a monster! The point here is to show that you hold your god to a LESSER moral standard than you hold humans! But I'm a humanist, and I care about human well-being. Your god obviously does not! The fact that he can stop this greater evil (which leads to suffering) but chooses not to makes him immoral. There is no moral equivalency between child rape and someone having access to pornography. Those are not comparable things! Someone having access to pornography doesn't lead to a lifetime of suffering. When you ask should God stop one but not the other, the answer is clearly YES (if he claims to be a moral being). And I don't know what you mean by "inappropriate" relationships because that's a subjective term. I don't know what you mean by "true" theives either. You are either a thief or you are not! But stealing is NOT inherently immoral! The fact that the Bible treats it as such shows that the people who wrote it didn't understand morality, and neither do you! If someone is attempting to steal something that is needed to prevent suffering (ie: food), they should be allowed to. That would be the morally correct decision if the theft is necessary to prevent suffering! If they are attempting to steal something intended to cause suffering (ie: a gun), then they shouldn't be! That would be a morally incorrect decision. This isn't hard! Murder is a legal definition! It simply means "unlawful" killing. Some murders are immoral, others are not. Similarly, some legal killings are immoral, others are not. Whether the killing happened in accordance with the law or not doesn't speak to the morality of the act. It is possible to legally kill people (not murder) and it still be an immoral act. It is also possible to unlawfully kill people (murder) and have it be the morally correct decision. Morality and legality are two different things, and this is something that religious people regularly fail to conceptualize! The question isn't whether God should stop "murders". It's should God stop "immoral killings", and the answer is clearly yes (IF he claims to be a moral being). If the end goal is to reduce suffering and promote the greater good, then what is your god's excuse for NOT stopping them? Each act has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, not lumped together as an all encompassing "evil" that God either has to either address as whole or not at all. How does allowing children to be raped accomplish the greater good? That's the question you need to be able to answer. And if you cannot, then you have no basis to claim God as an agent of good. I don't give a rats fuck about what "affairs" consenting adults do or do not engage in. I care about the physical and psychological well-being of children! The fact that you think there's a moral equivalency between these things is disgusting and demonstrative of the failure of Christian morals.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 4, 2023 20:37:05 GMT
I think you’re taking most of those quotes slightly out of context. Can I give my interpretation? Please do! This is a sort of enacted parable. The fig tree is a metaphor for the nation of Israel, and can also in a sense represent every individual’s personal relationship with God. The fig tree bore leaves too early in the season, but could not, or would not, bear fruit in kind. Fruitlessness leads to judgement. Okay, firstly - the cursing of the fig tree is not a "parable". I said it’s an “enacted” parable. You really think the same Jesus, who turned water into wine, and fed the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, suddenly got angry one day at a tree simply because he couldn’t get any figs that day? The overall moral lesson is a warning about hypocrisy. Giving the impression that you are pious and religious but displaying no fruit will only lead to getting cut down and cast into the lake of fire. What does a gardener do when a fruit tree doesn't bear fruit? He cuts it down because it cumbers the ground. No no. The fig tree is often used in the OT as a metaphor for the nation of Isreal. As is the vibe and olive trees. Plus you are aware that elsewhere Jesus does tell the parable of the fig tree, where the fig tree again represents the Jewish people? The metaphor represents the nation of Israel. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be a lesson that can also apply to believers. Firstly, what standard of morality are you using to judge God though? Secondly, you’re making a straw man argument. People will be judged for transgressing God’s laws, worship has nothing to do with it. Describing God as “evil” makes about as much sense as describing a human judge as evil for warning the accused of the consequences of his crime. So you didn’t love or respect your parents when you were a child? “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.”Proverbs 8:13 Salvation is only difficult to those unwilling to repent and submit to God. For everybody else it is a free gift by grace. Simple as that. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”Ephesians 2:8-9 [/quote]Again, what moral compass are you using to determine what is right and wrong? For me it’s not immoral when you fully understand the context. [/quote] Considering He is ultimately our creator, LORD and savior I say he’s within his rights to “venerate himself as more important”. The message by its nature is not divisive. End of the day it’s a byproduct of free will. You either choose to receive the free gift of salvation offered to you or you go your own way and eventually face judgement. Nothing there about abandoning their family. It’s about never putting our worldly possessions before God and salvation, about making salvation the most important aspect of your life. After all what’s 80 years on earth compared to eternity in either heaven or hell? If a wife or children are trying to stop you from inheriting eternal life then it’s rational to forsake them. That’s not immoral. [/quote] For a moral subjectivist like yourself to accuse the rapist or pedophile’s actions as immoral is irrelevant. The rapist and the pedophile can just as easily say their actions are morally good based on their own personal opinion. Who are you to determine that they’re ultimately evil?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 5, 2023 1:38:37 GMT
Because neither you (nor anyone else) has ever given a good reason why I should accept one as historical. Telling me that it was intended to be accepted as historical doesn’t justify the position that it IS historical. The truth of a proposition stands independent from what anyone asserts, believes, or intends regarding that proposition. There is a an abundance of good apologetics work out there for Christ. But I suspect you’ve already made up your mind. The problem for your claim though is that it ignores certain important facts of history. There were already Christians prior to Paul who were making bold claims about Christ. Fundamental Christian doctrines such as God had raised Jesus from the dead for our salvation etc. if Paul was the inventor of Christ/Christianity? Who was he persecuting before his conversion? There would have been no Christians to punish. Did Paul know he would be “venerated as a Saint” by the Roman church? Was that in his thinking as a motivating factor? His writings are part of it yes, but so what? How is that “increasing power”? Your claims here are a bit ridiculous, no offence. Not only did Paul have nothing to gain, in this life at least, but he in fact had everything to lose. We’re talking about someone who was stoned and left for dead, beaten, flogged, shipwrecked and eventually beheaded for becoming a follower of Jesus. Contrast this to his life before conversion. Paul was a roman citizen, a huge privilege many Jews did not have. He was highly educated in the Law and likely financially well off. He was a Pharisee among Pharisees and was very high up in the order of Jewish religious leaders of his day. You think he gave all that up to “increase power” as a Christian? It makes absolutely no sense. “More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,”Philippians 3:8 “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.”Philippians 1:21 Salvation for these early Apocalyptic Jews and Christians was from the imminent end times which was heresy in the mainstream Judaism. John the Baptizer was preaching this salvation before Jesus came on the scene.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2023 21:30:50 GMT
You really think the same Jesus, who turned water into wine, and fed the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, suddenly got angry one day at a tree simply because he couldn’t get any figs that day? Of course not. I don’t believe in magic or the supernatural. I don’t believe that ANY “Jesus” did anything supernatural (because these are all stories that are completely made up by different authors). And I certainly don’t believe the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree was intended to be the same character as the Jesus who turned water into wine. The cursing of the fig tree is a story told in the three synoptic gospels, and is not part of the account in the book of John. Jesus turning water into wine on the other hand is a story from the book of John, but does not occur in the synoptic gospels. Only church tradition and the canonization of John merges these two characters. But for some kind of religious indoctrination, why would I begin with a presumption that these two very different characters, with different stories, written by different authors decades removed from each other are about “the same person?” The overall moral lesson is a warning about hypocrisy. No it isn’t! That’s what the story about Jesus overturning tables and chasing out the money changers might be about. But the story of cursing the fig tree does not relate to that in any way. The story of him cursing the fig tree is meant to be a lesson about having faith in God to accomplish miracles. When the disciples see the result of what Jesus did (the withered tree), he tells them that if they have faith, they can do the same thing. That’s the moral of that story. The reason you are probably confused is because you read this in Mark (which breaks up the fig tree story into two parts, and puts the story of Jesus chasing away the money changers in the middle). But Mark is telling a chronological account. The stories aren’t meant to connect. If you read the same story in Matthew, the story of him entering the temple and chasing away the money changers comes first. It’s a complete account that does not connect to the fig tree story at all. Then, Matthew adds the story of the fig tree. This is because Matthew is trying to tell complete stories before moving on to another point. Giving the impression that you are pious and religious but displaying no fruit will only lead to getting cut down and cast into the lake of fire. What does a gardener do when a fruit tree doesn't bear fruit? He cuts it down because it cumbers the ground. So at this point you’ve now abandoned BOTH stories entirely and went on to a completely different scripture talking about something completely different. Yes, Jesus did give this moral lesson, but it was not part of the story of either the fig tree OR the money changers at the temple. The story about “false prophets” from Matthew 7 talks about cutting down bad trees that do not produce good fruit, and casting them into fire. So you’re getting your Jesus stories all mixed up. No no. The fig tree is often used in the OT as a metaphor for the nation of Isreal. As is the vibe and olive trees. Which is completely irrelevant since we’re not talking about the OT, and (as I’ve already pointed out) this story was NOT intended to be a metaphor. Plus you are aware that elsewhere Jesus does tell the parable of the fig tree, where the fig tree again represents the Jewish people? Off the top of my head, no I can’t say I recall that. But even if he did, so what? THIS story is not a metaphor! The metaphor represents the nation of Israel. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be a lesson that can also apply to believers. It’s not a metaphor for either. It’s written as a literal account and the lesson has to do with faith in God. It has nothing to do with the nation of Israel. Firstly, what standard of morality are you using to judge God though? It’s actually a complex system that can broadly be described as “secular humanism”, but which is informed by a combination of numerous philosophical normative ethical principles, including consequentialism, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and social contract theory. In simpler language, my standard of morality is based on promoting what is demonstrably beneficial for human well-being, and avoiding what is demonstrably detrimental to human well-being. Secondly, you’re making a straw man argument. People will be judged for transgressing God’s laws, worship has nothing to do with it. Describing God as “evil” makes about as much sense as describing a human judge as evil for warning the accused of the consequences of his crime. So first of all, no…it’s NOT like that at all. This would be a false analogy as “the judge” is not writing the laws, nor is the judge generally deciding guilt or innocence of a crime (that’s called a jury). In your belief system “God” would be the equivalent of a judge (who was also the sole lawmaker, as well as the jury, and the executioner). The reason we don’t have systems like that in our society is because that would be an inherently corrupt system. There’d be no way to ensure “justice” if ONE person had the sole power to judge, based on their own arbitrary laws. We would all recognize that type of judge as evil! Secondly, whether people are judged for transgressing Gods laws is debated (even within Christianity). While SOME verses in the Bible support that theory, others plainly contradict it. Nobody knows what people will be judged for, assuming there is a god to judge anybody. It’s all about how one interprets scripture. But regardless, whether it’s obeying God’s law, believing that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, accepting Jesus as your lord and savior, or becoming a sycophant, all of that amounts to “worship”. It’s just different forms of worship that you’re expected to do in order to avoid vengeance. No different than a mob boss! Transgress the mob boss by failing to make the payments, and he puts a hit on you and your family. Your God is no different! Finally, I did not make a straw man argument. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of your interlocutor’s argument. That’s not the case here. Formulating your belief system into an analogy that you find personally offensive is not a straw man. On the contrary, that’s the whole point. So you didn’t love or respect your parents when you were a child? Respect, yes. Fear? No. More to the point - do you FEAR your parents now? Do you fear your spouse now? Do you fear your children now? Do you fear ANYTHING that you love other than this God monster? This is more of a rhetorical question (I’m not expecting an answer, but hopefully you see my point now about why the Bible verse you thought was a good idea to quote is ultimately stupid). Here, allow me to give you my own: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering!” - Master Yoda (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace) Salvation is only difficult to those unwilling to repent and submit to God… This isn’t church. I really don’t give a rats fuck about your pathetic attempts at proselytizing. I’m willing to answer your questions about why I think Jesus was evil. I’m not willing to entertain your proselytizing bullshit. I’m OBVIOUSLY not talking about the “procedure” involved in salvation being actually difficult (because I don’t believe there is any such thing). THE POINT I was making is that the “concept” of salvation is demonstrably complicated as evidenced by the inability of Christians to codify an agreed upon doctrine expressing a universally agreed upon interpretation of how to achieve it. For me it’s not immoral when you fully understand the context. Well how wonderful FOR YOU. If everyone was YOU then there’d be no point in having conversations like this. But if you get outside of your own ass for a moment, you might see that FOR OTHERS it is immoral. The sheer fucking arrogance of you Christians to assume that BECAUSE you begin with a presupposition of a “good God”, THEREFORE you alone ended up with the proper understanding “in context”. You can’t even demonstrate that you understand context. You can’t even get your fucking Bible stories straight. Why should I believe that you have the rational capacity to put things in context at all when you’ve demonstrated otherwise? Regardless, you’re entitled to your beliefs, but I obviously come to a different conclusion. And your argument (if you want to call it that) has failed to convince me otherwise…mostly because it sucks! Considering He is ultimately our creator, LORD and savior I say he’s within his rights to “venerate himself as more important”. Cool story bro. I say it isn’t - so we’re at an impasse. But simply telling me your “belief” does not advance your case. Even if your premise was based in facts which you could demonstrate, being a creator does not make you intrinsically more valuable, better, or more important than anyone else. And it absolutely gives no reason whatsoever for the individual who you deem less important to consider you more important. Only a demented mind would believe that such a being ought to be venerated. No God who demanded expected worship would be worthy of it. Especially at the expense of other beings. The message by its nature is not divisive. It literally is (by its nature). “Follow me and it’ll be us against them, or else I’ll burn your ass for eternity” is the most divisive message ever invented by man. For a moral subjectivist like yourself to accuse the rapist or pedophile’s actions as immoral is irrelevant. The rapist and the pedophile can just as easily say their actions are morally good based on their own personal opinion. Who are you to determine that they’re ultimately evil? I’m a thinking agent with a sufficiently developed (and consistent) moral system, who has the ability to judge actions based on consequence. The rapist and the pedophile can SAY anything they want to say (just like you can, and just like your god could if it was real). I’m the only one so far that actually has a subjectively chosen moral system that objectively, demonstrably works. The reason my moral system is superior is because it’s based on things that are real, can be shown to be beneficial to the majority, and allows for the resolution of moral dilemmas. Your moral system does NONE of these things. Because it’s not actually a “system” at all. It’s divine command theory, which is just another way to say “might makes right”. It’s just as subjective as mine is, except it’s not actually demonstrated to be either based in reality, or beneficial. So it’s fucking useless! Religious rules don’t make anyone more moral. Many of them are immoral rules to begin with. Others are ignored altogether with no apparent accountability (which why so many rapes of children occur in churches by priests). Religion can be used to justify any behavior, no matter how heinous. You have the audacity to bring up what a rapist or pedophile might say as if your god has a moral high ground when according to your Bible he endorses slavery and genocide? Get the fuck outta here!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 8, 2023 23:58:57 GMT
Last time I checked ... the story of St. Paul going after Christians is in the NT, in particular in the Book of Acts Cool. Who exactly wrote the Book of Acts (and when was it written)? Back to St. Thomas: Orthodox Churches are just like the Catholic Church: They have Apostolic Succession. The Greek Orthodox trace their lineage to St. Andrew the brother of St. Peter; the Coptic Orthodox trace their Popes to St. Mark the Evangelist; and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox, aka the Indian Orthodox Church, traces its lineage to St. Thomas. That's NOT what I asked you. I don't give a rats fuck about where any religious denominations claims it traces its roots too. I asked you, where did you HEAR that Thomas "traveled to India" to preach the Gospel. Is that written in ANY Gospel account, New Testament scripture, or contemporary accounts? Yes or no? Almost certainly not, although the Jesus in India thing is canon in Mystic Christianity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Feb 12, 2023 3:14:23 GMT
Because neither you (nor anyone else) has ever given a good reason why I should accept one as historical. Telling me that it was intended to be accepted as historical doesn’t justify the position that it IS historical. The truth of a proposition stands independent from what anyone asserts, believes, or intends regarding that proposition. Chronologically speaking, who is the first biblical author to make claims about Jesus? Jesus seems to begin with Paul as far as anyone can validate. That’s a good reason to think he is Paul’s invention. Did Paul not gain immeasurable followers after he supposedly converted to Christianity and preaching the Gospel? Are not his writings the predominant source of information concerning the entire Christian religion? Isn't Paul venerated as a “Saint” by the Roman Church right now? Paul never converted to “Christianity.” He views The Way as the bonafide Jewish Apocalypse as preached by outlier Jews like Jesus who Paul believes to be the first human being to be risen from his earthly tomb. Paul says clearly he is a Jew and could be nothing else, but he doesn’t think the Resurrection of the Dead is limited to Jews only as Jesus did. Before Jesus rose from his earthly tomb, didn't he raise Lazarus from the dead? Or is the distinction being made that Lazarus was raised from his deathbed and Jesus was raised from his earthly tomb?
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Feb 12, 2023 3:20:56 GMT
Please do! Okay, firstly - the cursing of the fig tree is not a "parable". I said it’s an “enacted” parable. You really think the same Jesus, who turned water into wine, and fed the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, suddenly got angry one day at a tree simply because he couldn’t get any figs that day? The overall moral lesson is a warning about hypocrisy. Giving the impression that you are pious and religious but displaying no fruit will only lead to getting cut down and cast into the lake of fire. What does a gardener do when a fruit tree doesn't bear fruit? He cuts it down because it cumbers the ground. No no. The fig tree is often used in the OT as a metaphor for the nation of Isreal. As is the vibe and olive trees. Plus you are aware that elsewhere Jesus does tell the parable of the fig tree, where the fig tree again represents the Jewish people? The metaphor represents the nation of Israel. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be a lesson that can also apply to believers. Firstly, what standard of morality are you using to judge God though? Secondly, you’re making a straw man argument. People will be judged for transgressing God’s laws, worship has nothing to do with it. Describing God as “evil” makes about as much sense as describing a human judge as evil for warning the accused of the consequences of his crime. So you didn’t love or respect your parents when you were a child? “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.”Proverbs 8:13 Salvation is only difficult to those unwilling to repent and submit to God. For everybody else it is a free gift by grace. Simple as that. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”Ephesians 2:8-9 Again, what moral compass are you using to determine what is right and wrong? For me it’s not immoral when you fully understand the context. [/quote] Considering He is ultimately our creator, LORD and savior I say he’s within his rights to “venerate himself as more important”. The message by its nature is not divisive. End of the day it’s a byproduct of free will. You either choose to receive the free gift of salvation offered to you or you go your own way and eventually face judgement. Nothing there about abandoning their family. It’s about never putting our worldly possessions before God and salvation, about making salvation the most important aspect of your life. After all what’s 80 years on earth compared to eternity in either heaven or hell? If a wife or children are trying to stop you from inheriting eternal life then it’s rational to forsake them. That’s not immoral. [/quote] For a moral subjectivist like yourself to accuse the rapist or pedophile’s actions as immoral is irrelevant. The rapist and the pedophile can just as easily say their actions are morally good based on their own personal opinion. Who are you to determine that they’re ultimately evil?[/quote] ShadowSouL: So you can't, don't, or won't determine that rapists' and pedophiles' actions are ultimately evil?
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Feb 12, 2023 3:27:27 GMT
Psalm 51: 16-17
16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart--these, O God, You will not despise.
|
|