 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Nick @ www.onlymomentsbook.com
Most religions are exclusionary and therefore prejudicial to each other. One would do well to research and go back to the dawn of real civilization and the far Eastern religions that Jesus learned and used in the attempt at the reformation of Judaism. St. Paul borrowed from the pagan religion of Mithras to forge and recreate Judaism into a cult of “The Christ” from the Greek term Christos and Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus Christ. The cult of Mithras predates St. Paul by a least a thousand years. The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia (now Iran) during the reign of the emperor Nero, its origins in India have been traced back to 1400 BC.
There were over 17 different religious cults that spawned from this movement that began by this reformation and the Pauline Christians eventually became the most accepted. Paul broke away from the original teachings of Judaism by allowing dietary laws and circumcision (an integral part of being Jewish) to no longer be a part of this reformation because of the difficulty of gaining converts. Hmm, let’s see, I can’t eat this, this, and this, and I have to do what with my penis?? Pretty tough job gaining conversions hence his actions. James, Jesus’ brother called Paul back to Jerusalem and chastised him for taking such liberties doing this. Nonetheless, Paul was undaunted and history is written by those who succeed or conquer. Jesus was made Divine by humans; transformed to a Diety in 325 AD by the pagan King Constantine and the now “Holy Roman” Catholic Church. This merger created a new Europe, literally, by combining East and West to band together for the first time in history. The New Testament was created at this council by the selection and editing of “holy” scrolls that they now called “gospels” literally meaning good tiding or good news, and combining them together with the Old Testament. This “codex” as it was called was then declared the basis for this merger of Paganism (the worship of Helios, Ra, and the Mithras cult) and Christianity. These are the facts. Fanatics and obstinate believers of “their God only” will always distort, smokescreen, deliniate, obscure, and alter these facts to their advantage. Always.
There is no one way to God. Your consciousness is all that you have in this dimension. Whatever you believe, that is the psychosis that you create. I don’t expect hard line believers to understand this, as no one that is so wrapped up the My God Only contingent ever does. To not address real history and other beliefs such as Shintos, Budhhists (which actually is not a religion but a way of life), Hindus, Bahá’í Faiths, Zoroastrianists, Native American religions, African traditional religions, Taoists, Judaism, Islamics, Gnostics, and hundreds of other both current and ancient makes one just as prejudiced as Ms. Coulter.
Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Lutherans, LDS Mormoms or any other Christian groups are totally different from one other. Each one’s dogma is substantially different so does that make them less than perfect as well? According to the spiritual leader of Catholics, only Catholic dogma is correct, therefore they are the only real Christians. The Catholic church tolerates those other “cults” in public, but not when it comes to strict doctrine. They are the only “true” Christians within Christianity, that is the only true religion, because they have bishops. Hey Ann, go fight that one out with the Pope. This whole thing makes me want to go see “The Life Of Brian” by Monty Python again. “…..Judean People’s Front? We’re the People’s Front of Judea” “. ….. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the (expletive) Judean People’s Front.” “…Oh! I thought we were the Popular Front. Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?” (points to an old man) “He’s over there.”
Guess what people? No one has a monopoly on the belief of a God, a Divine Being, The Creator. To call it by a name, “do it well to count the angels dancing on pin.”
Unless you study history with an open mind and stop reading the Bible literally, this obliqueness of understanding will always be present. Yes, Ann and others like her; you believe in only your god, on your terms, in your mind. My god is on my terms, in my mind. I’ve died and come back and experienced crossing over. It’s all about what you’ve experienced and I know love and understand that it is all there is, but yet very ignorant and undereducated know-it-alls allow and promote the bloodshed that continues unabated because of such closed minds. And really just to make money. Isn’t that why Jesus threw the moneychangers (the vendors who were making money) out of the sacred Temple of Jerusalem during the high holy days? A great example if I’ve ever seen one. Why don’t you start by following that example? He rejected the making of profit from religion. For him it was about the individual’s devotion to spirituality of man to God, not the act of being saved by someone else. Look to the inside for the salvation of your soul, look to the inside to see the essence of God, of the eternal. You don’t have a choice-your mind perceives all that you are-look inside yourself for answers, they are there. Jesus was a great man, his ideas still hold great promise if people knew what they were through the obscurity of what someone else tells them. Your are the temple of God, you are all that is now. It’s all about love, love of the self, and sacrifice for each other, get it yet? If you don’t, well, that is less than perfect.
Most religions are exclusionary and therefore prejudicial to each other. One would do well to research and go back to the dawn of real civilization and the far Eastern religions that Jesus learned and used in the attempt at the reformation of Judaism. St. Paul borrowed from the pagan religion of Mithras to forge and recreate Judaism into a cult of “The Christ” from the Greek term Christos and Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus Christ. The cult of Mithras predates St. Paul by a least a thousand years. The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia (now Iran) during the reign of the emperor Nero, its origins in India have been traced back to 1400 BC.
There were over 17 different religious cults that spawned from this movement that began by this reformation and the Pauline Christians eventually became the most accepted. Paul broke away from the original teachings of Judaism by allowing dietary laws and circumcision (an integral part of being Jewish) to no longer be a part of this reformation because of the difficulty of gaining converts. Hmm, let’s see, I can’t eat this, this, and this, and I have to do what with my penis?? Pretty tough job gaining conversions hence his actions. James, Jesus’ brother called Paul back to Jerusalem and chastised him for taking such liberties doing this. Nonetheless, Paul was undaunted and history is written by those who succeed or conquer. Jesus was made Divine by humans; transformed to a Diety in 325 AD by the pagan King Constantine and the now “Holy Roman” Catholic Church. This merger created a new Europe, literally, by combining East and West to band together for the first time in history. The New Testament was created at this council by the selection and editing of “holy” scrolls that they now called “gospels” literally meaning good tiding or good news, and combining them together with the Old Testament. This “codex” as it was called was then declared the basis for this merger of Paganism (the worship of Helios, Ra, and the Mithras cult) and Christianity. These are the facts. Fanatics and obstinate believers of “their God only” will always distort, smokescreen, deliniate, obscure, and alter these facts to their advantage. Always.
There is no one way to God. Your consciousness is all that you have in this dimension. Whatever you believe, that is the psychosis that you create. I don’t expect hard line believers to understand this, as no one that is so wrapped up the My God Only contingent ever does. To not address real history and other beliefs such as Shintos, Budhhists (which actually is not a religion but a way of life), Hindus, Bahá’í Faiths, Zoroastrianists, Native American religions, African traditional religions, Taoists, Judaism, Islamics, Gnostics, and hundreds of other both current and ancient makes one just as prejudiced as Ms. Coulter.
Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Lutherans, LDS Mormoms or any other Christian groups are totally different from one other. Each one’s dogma is substantially different so does that make them less than perfect as well? According to the spiritual leader of Catholics, only Catholic dogma is correct, therefore they are the only real Christians. The Catholic church tolerates those other “cults” in public, but not when it comes to strict doctrine. They are the only “true” Christians within Christianity, that is the only true religion, because they have bishops. Hey Ann, go fight that one out with the Pope. This whole thing makes me want to go see “The Life Of Brian” by Monty Python again. “…..Judean People’s Front? We’re the People’s Front of Judea” “. ….. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the (expletive) Judean People’s Front.” “…Oh! I thought we were the Popular Front. Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?” (points to an old man) “He’s over there.”
Guess what people? No one has a monopoly on the belief of a God, a Divine Being, The Creator. To call it by a name, “do it well to count the angels dancing on pin.”
Unless you study history with an open mind and stop reading the Bible literally, this obliqueness of understanding will always be present. Yes, Ann and others like her; you believe in only your god, on your terms, in your mind. My god is on my terms, in my mind. I’ve died and come back and experienced crossing over. It’s all about what you’ve experienced and I know love and understand that it is all there is, but yet very ignorant and undereducated know-it-alls allow and promote the bloodshed that continues unabated because of such closed minds. And really just to make money. Isn’t that why Jesus threw the moneychangers (the vendors who were making money) out of the sacred Temple of Jerusalem during the high holy days? A great example if I’ve ever seen one. Why don’t you start by following that example? He rejected the making of profit from religion. For him it was about the individual’s devotion to spirituality of man to God, not the act of being saved by someone else. Look to the inside for the salvation of your soul, look to the inside to see the essence of God, of the eternal. You don’t have a choice-your mind perceives all that you are-look inside yourself for answers, they are there. Jesus was a great man, his ideas still hold great promise if people knew what they were through the obscurity of what someone else tells them. Your are the temple of God, you are all that is now. It’s all about love, love of the self, and sacrifice for each other, get it yet? If you don’t, well, that is less than perfect.
He also writes "There is no one way to God".
This is not true. The bible states that we are saved not through works but by faith alone. The path to salvation is through believing in Jesus and believing that he died for our sins. We are saved by baptism through the holy water and through the convenant of holy communion. But the point is the one thing is Jesus.
Sarcasm aside.. You know that Muslims born into Islam feel the same way -- to the death.
Why are you right and they are wrong? How would they answer?
"I contend we are both Atheists, I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen F. Roberts
If you are not a papist, disregard the foregoing. If you are simply a garden-variety fruitcake, then just one more thing: you do not need to be "saved". Saved from what? Saved from who? For what reasons? Like all xristians, you cannot defend your beliefs; all you can do is re-state them.
And what in the name of the gods do you mean by "holy water"? Are you seriously saying that a priest can bless some water and make it holy? And do you seriously say that the wine and crackers become the blood and body of jesus? Do us a favor: do not come in here with your deranged babble. If you want to talk, then for xrist's sake, talk sense.
Ryan, who by the way has been saved from miscreants like you.
Anony:"This may be true but it does not take into account the idea that there is one true religion that separates itself from the rest which are all cults."
Anony, it is the whole point of the statement! You just described a prejudicial religion. It is clear that when you used the word "idea", you meant "belief", when you said:"Christ is the ONE."
As far as credible evidences are concerned, there seems to be no difference between christianity and all the other cult religions, in that they all suffer from a lack of it.
Then, to further your descent into unsubstantiation, you credit the bible as an authority for what is real. Much like muslims use the koran to support what they believe to be real. You fail to distinguish christianity from other cults of religion, in any meaningful, realistic way.
Unless you can provide some credible evidence that the bible is what you think it is, I suggest you rethink your criteria for what is a cult and what is not.
You may need help with this. Don't hesitate to ask.
Someone said "be saved from what?" The answer is plain. Be saved from sin. Be saved from the effects of sin which is ultimately eternal damnation. I think being saved from the fires of hell is worth something to be saved for.
Darkwona...I am most certainly NOT an atheist. I believe in God. An atheist (foolishly) says.."there is NO God. That's what atheism means. But I don't believe there is no god. I believe Christ is Lord over me.
Stronger now asserts that I may need clarification on whether or not Catholicism is a cult. Not true. A wise man, (I think Philip Roth) said once, The difference between a cult and a religion is political power.
Clearly the Catholic religion holds a great deal of political power and when we Christians vote we will decide the election. Mark my words. A republican will take office in 2008.
The only thing holy about water is that it keeps most people alive by drinking it either straight or in a good mix with vodka, but I do not like to dilute good hootch with something fish piss in. People claim they are attracted to religion because they want to make a difference in the world but what they really mean is that they want a difference in themselves. Why be born again? Why not just grow up?
And Christianity IS a relationship. But not like a typical one. It's an intimate personal relationship with God. I've been a christian as long as I've been alive and I've felt God's presence my whole life. For me, it's the gift of faith. I don't need to question it. I feel bad for those of you who mock my relationship with God. Why are you so angry and sarcastic always?
A close relationship with God provides you with a more powerful and meaningful means of communication than anything you could ever get through worldly crazes like the i-phone. I can speak to god without the aid of bluetooth or wifi or any contract with AT&T.
There is no such thing as sin. Sin is a big lie sold to us by religion. It's a self fulfilling prophocey to make us fell like pieces of shit in which religion is it's only cure. To buy into the concept of sin from a theist and turning to his religion, would be like buying a band aid from a man who has just cut you.(Dan Barker Quote).
What you're saying is absurd. These things are clearly sin. There is a reason they are bad. If there were no god at all, and we were all just random atoms than why would anything be "good" or "bad"?
Listen, Anony, this is exactly what Nick means by hard-line believers not being able to understand. If you would even bother to look up Mithraism, and other gods such as Osiris, Dionysus, and even Krishna, you would be mortified at how unoriginal your “one true religion” is.
You beg the question. Why is Christ the ONE? Why should we believe you and not, say, a Muslim?
Anonymous #3318050265446598 wrote: “He also writes 'There is no one way to God'.
“This is not true. The bible states [SNIP]”
Stop right there. Ask yourself, Anony, why would you expect a non-Christian to believe the Christian Bible? This is such an obvious matter that it baffles me that anyone can seriously argue this way. All religions have sacred writings, and their adherents believe their writings just as strongly as you believe yours. Why should anyone believe yours and not the others?
Then:"Stronger now asserts that I may need clarification on whether or not Catholicism is a cult. Not true. A wise man, (I think Philip Roth) said once, The difference between a cult and a religion is political power."
This was not an answer. If political power were the deciding factor for you, then you would have to agree that islam cannot be considered a cult either. Muslims have significant political sway in certain parts of the world. Thus, you contradict yourself.
I hardly think that it matters at all to you though. You seem like a poser.
Or are you really Marc, Passerby, Yogi bear, unblinded, ect..ect..?
If you are, go away.
If your not... pick a name, and I may continue to show you some of your errors in logic.
The fifth commandment (sixth for you non-Catholics) from the Jewish scriptures? The same scriptures that have that same God commanding the mass murder of all of Canaan? The same God that threatened to murder the entire nation of Israel to placate His petty jealousy (Exodus 32)? The One who sent a plague on Israel because the 3000 murders ordered by Moses weren’t enough for Him (Exodus 32 again)?
And how does this apply to the Roman Catholic Church, which ordered the murderous crusades and inquisitions?
Anonymous wrote: “I think Islam is a start in worshipping God but they need to see the path that is Jesus to the true salvation.”
Yes, and they are convinced that you blaspheme God by claiming that Jesus is part of a triune godhead. Why should they believe you?
Anonymous wrote: “Someone said "be saved from what?" The answer is plain. Be saved from sin. Be saved from the effects of sin which is ultimately eternal damnation. I think being saved from the fires of hell is worth something to be saved for.”
Begging the question again. How do you know about sin? Who or what defines sin? How do you know that there is a hell? Is it your Bible again?
Anonymous wrote: “Darkwona...I am most certainly NOT an atheist. I believe in God. An atheist (foolishly) says..'there is NO God. That's what atheism means. But I don't believe there is no god. I believe Christ is Lord over me.”
You quote Psalm 14 (or Psalm 53). There you go with that Bible again. Why would an atheist believe what the Bible says??? (An while you’re explaining that, please explain why you didn’t observe Matthew 5:22.)
I appreciate the sentiment of your post. But the problem with believing in a god, any god, is that you give your power away.
Anytime we ascribe supernatural powers to help us to anyone, we are conceding two things: (1) The impossible can be accomplished, and (2)the solution is outside ourselves.
Both concepts interfere with the normal life of a person who should have a realistic view of life--not expecting the impossible--and work hard to fulfill one's needs and dreams.
So, in my view, even if there were a god--which I don't believe it does--we do well in ignoring her.
I don't want to give my personal power and expectations to anyone outside of myself.
You have to look at things from my perspective. I've been raised Christian. To me this is the true word of God. When you've been raised with the truth you don't feel the need to go investigate all the lies. Now if you've gotten caught up in the lies I can see why you might question the bible. How do you think the earth exists? Because of big loud bangs? Why do you think there is good and evil? If we are just atoms there is no such thing. You have a spirit. And you might want to ask yourself how you came to post this and end up in this discussion. Maybe God is reaching out to you right now. I'll look for a response later tonight.
December 06, 2007
Your post shows how dumb you really are:
Your bible has never been proven a true work of anything. In fact, white American history books are closer to the truth than what is presented in your bible. If you had any kind of a mind at all you would understand the big bang made no noise at all or haven't you ever studied anything to do with the universe beyond what you found in Genesis? God is telling you and giving you an opportunity right now to get down on your knees and beg his forgiveness for falling for such stupid drivel you are writing here. He is calling you to repentance for your lack of scientific knowledge. God brought you here to learn the truth that will set you free from the pedophilatic fish-eatin' religion called Christianity. Somebody say 'ramen!'
“What you're saying is absurd. These things are clearly sin. There is a reason they are bad...”
What you are implying is absurd; xrayman knows that “bad” and “sin” are not equivalent. Sin is a transgression against religious law, and can apply to capricious, picayune, victimless actions such as eating a hot dog on Ash Wednesday. Bad is something undesirable, harmful, or that has undesirable consequences.
Anonymous wrote: “If there were no god at all, and we were all just random atoms than why would anything be 'good' or 'bad'?”
Non sequitur #1. How would the non-existence of a god imply that we are just random atoms?
Non sequitur #2. Why would the non-existence of a god mean that there is no good or bad?
_________________
@heretic zero: I agree with Anony. The pedophile comment was below the belt.
#1 Mithra
You seem to have conflated two seperate religions. Mithraism from 1400 B.C.E. India has only tenuous links to Mithraism to the Mithraism of the Roman World. Thus the majority of threads between it and Christianity just cannot be pulled. "Roman" Mithraism has also been subjected to outlandish claims; bordering on deception e.g. the virgin birth story.
For more on the history on Roman Mithraism see The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire
Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun Roger Beck published by Oxford University Press. There also was a conference on Roman Mithraism in the 70's which I believe is online which contains much of what has become the consensus view.
#2 Christ was made divine in 325 C.E.
The deity of Christ outside of the New Testament is established from the very nascent of Christianity(ies). Proto-orthodox writers such as Ignatius (c.a. 110), Tertullian (c.a. 160) Justin Martyr (c.a 160)as all quite explicit in his deity. As are Gnostic writers, Montanists even Arians. To say it was invented in 325 C.E. is lifted straight out of Da Vinci Code speculation. You will find, if you wish to carry on this pursuit of attempting to discredit Christianity, the theories of Bauer and many others more acceptable- that Jesus was made divine with the merging Gentile church around 100-150 A.D. Certainly not 325 C.E. and NOT from Constantine. Constantine to be frank did not care to much for any such theological nuances as this. Even the most speculative biographies on him and Nicaea make that point.
#3 You say that James called Paul back and had a dispute with him- I think you mean Peter. James had nothing to do with this apart from a speech in Acts 15 where he supported Paul(!)
#4 You say Mithraism came into the Roman world with Nero's soldiers in the Parthian (Persian) Empire. Yet Nero's soldiers only entered Parthia in 58C.E. Christianity and its kernel creeds were established by such point. A lot of Pauls letters had been written and the Gospels about to be written. It was only a couple of years after Nero's soldiers entered Parthia that the fire was blamed on the Christian populace of Rome!
#5 You claim that the council of Nicaea created the canon of scripture. The council however had categorically no discussion on the canon. Read any of the reports from it, read histories of the account both primary and secondary scholarship. The only council that did make a pronouncement on the canon was a localized council in Greece around 380 C.E. if I remember correctly.
I hope you will therefore retract your above article and the inflective language/challenge with it; for the benefit of retaining the title 'freethinker' as I know so many ex-christians hold so dear such blatent errors cannot be allowed to go public.
Sincerely,
A. Barton.
You wrote:
Anytime we ascribe supernatural powers to help us to anyone, we are conceding two things: (1) The impossible can be accomplished, and (2)the solution is outside ourselves.
I wrote:
Your consciousness is all that you have in this dimension. Whatever you believe, that is the psychosis that you create.......Look to the inside for the salvation of your soul, look to the inside to see the essence of God, of the eternal. You don’t have a choice-your mind perceives all that you are-look inside yourself for answers...
I empower no one but what I feel inside and what I have experienced. Is there a God? Surely that question has been pondered since the dawn of man. I harbor no ill will to any who would or would not believe but I will fight for my right to be left to my thoughts, as I would for you as well. "Sacred writings" notwithstanding I don't go into pissing contest with those who look for the smallest details to overthrow and mask what they are subscribing to: An all knowing diety that became a man. There are hundreds of example throughout human history-they are called Myths.
"Your consciousness is all that you have in this dimension. "
Lorena responds:
I don't completely disagree with you, Nick. The problem is that the word God is so polluted that it doesn't serve the purpose of empowering a person. The mere mention of the G word immediately activates a part of the brain which yearns for outside help.
So, perhaps, what you are trying to convey would be better explained if you eliminated the G word.
But really, when I think about it, any theory which requires me to believe concepts that are beyond my level of perception sends my brain into imagination mode. And such exercise requires much energy that I badly need to lead a fruitful life.
I think it is more advisable to concentrate in the HERE AND NOW than to entertain illusions of other civilizations, as possible as that may be.
You know what I think is happening? The Jebus creeps are becoming so worried that they have sent an army of the living dead (walking bible freaks) to invade us here on this website. Lock the frickin' doors before I barf all over my keyboard.
Some how they think they are going to scare us back to church or something.
To the Anony who said, "The point is most priests aren't pedophiles." you might add "at least not until they bother (butpoke) the wrong kid". The priesthood seems to be melting pot for bung holers.
Happy Winter Solstice everyone.
In regards to early Jewish/Christianity I would refer you to this: Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Yes there are two possibly three different sects of Mithraism, what does that prove? None of what I said changes that.
To all that read this go ahead and type- Christ Council of Nicea divinity -in any search engine and most accounts will plainly show that the the official declaration for Christ's divinity is indeed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
You have made a mistake, I do not try to discredit Christianity, I merely point out that all religions are based on chonological myths and then use bits and pieces from the past, Christianity is not immune nor special in this regard.
The Nicene Creed was established in 325 AD at Nicea. The bishops establised procedures, set the date for holidays, and established for certain what had been a rag-tag bunch of holy books, into a cohesive codex, the creation of such that had already occurred, they merely cleaned up the procedural use of such (according to many writings), whatever that means. As a writer cleaning up a book mean editing, but I wasn't there and neither were you.
I appreciate the masked higher order of research you portray (and kindly at that) as if I am a wayward sinner, however I respect your beliefs and do not condemn you for them. It is your religions insistence throughout the last 2000 years that has demanded that I believe your codex, creed, and myths because you have pieces of paper that tell you so. As I respectively decline to look at ancient scibblings as absolute doctrine from a supernatural source I don't expect you to understand why, you can't. If you take one piece of your fundamental building blocks in your beliefs, the entire building implodes. The Pope just announced one of the most divisive papers in the 20th Century-the fact that only the Roman Catholic Church is the true religion of Christ because it has a lineage of bishops that trace back to the apostles. Now there's a reason to kill everyone else, the Church has used that same excuse for 2000 years. History, abarton, is not on your side as far as being the gentle kinder church.
As far as retracting my article I repeat this:
Fanatics and obstinate believers of “their God only” will always distort, smokescreen, deliniate, obscure, and alter these facts to their advantage. Always.
I do read you loud and clear but I think I didn't get the exact meaning I was attempting.
You said:
I don't completely disagree with you, Nick. The problem is that the word God is so polluted that it doesn't serve the purpose of empowering a person.
And I agree, but the line I wrote:
For him (sic Jesus) it was about the individual’s devotion to spirituality of man to God, not the act of being saved by someone else. Look to the inside for the salvation of your soul, look to the inside to see the essence of God, of the eternal. You don’t have a choice-your mind perceives all that you are-look inside yourself for answers, they are there.
I was referring to Jesus' word of time and I should have been more specific. The misinterpretation of his words "look to thyself for thy salvation" has been used by fanatics to mean anything other than looking to oneself. In that context I went on without deliniating what I meant. Sorry.
Let me try again:
We are all that we see, hear, touch, feel, and experience. In my opinion, our soul is divine and perfect and has the "grace" to animate our flesh. The flesh and the soul are one regardless of what mind/body split theories abound. Without one or the other we do not exist. As we are all that is, all we experience and we live by the “grace” of the soul, ergo tear down the third wall. We are God as only “we” can experience that thought, that essence individually. The myths of man do little justice to that true beauty. Time itself is dependent on velocity and point of reference. I for one do not preach of what one should be worshipping, feeling, or quote human authors for relegation to good/evil, light/dark references that abound in every Pre-Christian religion known to man. Who am I? I am all that is, that I now perceive. My morality and ethics to my fellow humans is what defines who I am and I don’t need a Deity crowned by man to know that I will always treat those fellow beings the same way I would want to be treated. That’s a legacy worth keeping, the rest of the rhetoric creates walls and fences and discriminates and causes violence and wars for it’s inherent intent of declaring all others inferior by Divine command.
You have to look at things from my perspective. I've been raised Christian. To me this is the true word of God. When you've been raised with the truth you don't feel the need to go investigate all the lies.
So you absorbed the religion of your parents and now you see no reason to question it.
Exactly like the vast majority all other "religious' people.
You don't question yours, they don't question theirs. You are no different.
Quite sad actually.
What does this (hypothetical) soul need to be saved from? The implication is that there is something inherently wrong with man that needs to be fixed, which is one of the foundations of the scam that is Christianity.
I cleared that bit of confusion up in the last response to lorena...
I didn't make myself clear, sorry.
That is why we have the 'day/age' theory and other stories that were created to try and make sense of the story that is in such stark contradiction to the natural record.
Paul's Christianity is based on the assumption that the story of original sin is true. That there was the first man and the first woman. That there was a cunning talking snake who convinced the woman to eat of the mystery fruit.
Since we know snakes do not talk, nor have much of a brain, nor eat dirt.. we had to try and explain the story so it is less ridiculous. The snake was then a symbol of satan.
If you read that portion of genesis, you will pretty plainly see that the author was referring to a real snake.. not a fallen angel.
This is just one of hundreds of examples where judeo-christian mythology ceases to be a literal and true thing.
There are lakes on this planet that are millions of years old.. based not only on carbon and other dating techniques, but also by counting the layers.
For those who truly believe that god created the world in 6 literal days, how do you explain the layers?
If a layer of sediment was created every month, that still means the lake is over 500,000 years old!
We have been studying this lake for longer than a few months and it is a fairly accepted notion that it does not take on new layers of sediment on a monthly basis.
We can't prove there is or is not a creator -- but we can certainly observe this world and how it works to at least figure out how it was done.
We CAN test, verify, or invalidate religion based upon the assertions the religion makes.
Christianity fails.
Christians ARE atheists to ALL other gods.. Please re-read the quote I posted earlier. Think about the words.
All truth is god's truth. If it isn't true, it is NOT god's truth.
How many creative apologetics have you had to chew in sermons and in bible studies to explain away all of the contrary information we are presented with on a daily basis?
You no longer have to take the word of someone who also has not read 'The Origin of Species', it is now available for free online!. And I know you will bring it up.. Evolution does NOT explain, nor try to, the beginnings of life on earth. It explains the development of life on earth. We don't know, yet, how life was started. But it was certainly not started by the genesis god because the evidence contradicts those assertions.
Take care all! This was fun.
Good luck to all on the quest for truth. It is out there.. probably awaiting a curious mind.
wonka
You have to look at things from my perspective.
Christonymous, I don't know you from adam. However, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that your "perspective" requires one of two things in order for you to have the very perception that you claim to have. Those would be either, 1) "Faith" in what you believe, or 2) "evidence" for what you believe.
Now, which is it? If it is the latter, I ask you to present that evidence at this time. If it is the former--if it is "Faith" with which you are a believer--then I can tell you, catagorically, that many of us are quite familiar with that "perspective"...i.e..your "perspective". I say that because many of us know perfectly well how to convince ourselves how to believe things that are just not so, this, in order to feel comfortable; in order to not rock the boat. It's called self-delusion.
Christonymous....I've been raised Christian. To me this is the true word of God. When you've been raised with the truth....HALT!
Tell me something, Christonymous, how do you go from having "been raised" a certain way, to said "way" being the undeniable "truth"???? Muslims are "raised" to believe that "Allah is God". It would seem that this fact refutes your notion that the way one is "raised", is mutually inclusive with knowing "truth".
Christonymous...How do you think the earth exists? Because of big loud bangs?
Strawman; caricature; non sequitur; "god of the gaps"....all of which are employed by you in the above statement. You caricature the naturalist position, and then attack that(strawman). You assume that because "things" exist, then God created them, therefore, God exists.(non sequitur) Finally, since the truth is that no one knows for certain how everything came into existence, you still attempt to answer that question with "God"("God of the gaps")....which is just another way to say "I don't know", which is a non-answer.
Christonymous...Why do you think there is good and evil? If we are just atoms there is no such thing. You have a spirit.
'Same thing....strawman; caricature; non sequitur..and this time, bare assertion fallacy...e.g.."you have a spirit". Says who? Prove it.
Christonymous...And you might want to ask yourself how you came to post this and end up in this discussion.
Simple---when I see idiotic and/or fantastic claims, I'm inclined to respond.
Christonymous...Maybe God is reaching out to you right now.
Maybe Satan is tempting you with the incorrect beliefs?
"We are all that we see, hear, touch, feel, and experience. In my opinion, our soul is divine and perfect and has the "grace" to animate our flesh. The flesh and the soul are one regardless of what mind/body split theories abound."
Lorena responds:
I will jump on the boat with my fellow ex-Christians and tell you that there is no proof that all that is real. None, zip, zero.
But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that I believe that. How does that help me live a better life here and now, today?
That sort of spirituality is to ethereal and surreal that it serves no practical purpose. I, frankly, don't see how helpful it could be for me to hold such ideals.
And you say you meant Jesus. Well, why bother with Jesus? There are mountains of contemporary books out there that can help a person overcome problems and find solutions to just about any issue.
And those solutions are better than those of Jesus because (a) the books contain wisdom accumulated by the human race through the ages, and (b) many make use of science and the findings are, therefore verifiable.
There is no place for a god-belief in the mind of a practical person--even if she exists.
On Mithra. Well it does change things quite substantially. Much of the purported similiarities were in this later Roman Mithraism that did not emerge until well after Christianity's nascent- sometimes into the 3rd century C.E. The other strained links were limited to 1400 B.C.E. Persia with no links to 0 C.E. Galilee.
On Eisenman.I have to say I have never heard of Eisenman or his work so I am at a loss to comment. But allow me to raise some skeptisim around it. Judging from the comments I can see on the internet it takes some rather idiosyncratic (to say the least) views. I have never seen it quoted in academic work, it significantly has never been review in any journal- and it has been out for 12 years, this is VERY odd were it taken seriously. I have never, to me knowledge, seen it quoted in any of the plethora of studies, (inc. introductions and overview of research) of the historical Jesus or the New Testament. It seems to have fallen into a blackhole to be picked up only by conspiracy theorists. It is wrong to slander a book from some kind of snubbery I know, but all signs are not promising on the usefulness of this particular book.
Also throughout you seem to assume I am a (conservative) Christian and suggest I'm imposing some sort of obtusenes as a result. You seem to suggest (I hope I am misreading you) Christians can never see history straight! I am, as it happens, a Christian; but that has very little (I will admit it does give me some inclinations to lean certain ways) in my formation of Church history.
As for the council of Nicaea, it did make a pronouncement on a particular aspect of Christ's deity. Not on Christ's deity. There were dozens of councils after Nicaea also on aspects of his deity (e.g. the homoosios argument). Arius did believe Christ was divine- everyone did, as I said even the most unabashed heretics never disputed that (apart from a small group called Ebionites). I gather that some in this community has some sort of grevience against Christianity so here is a quote from Ehrman, who I think many of you will know for his Misquoting Jesus book; so you will be aware the is not a Christian source:
In his book on the Da Vinci Code he says this:
"But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine, as Teabing indicates. Quote the contrary: everyone at the Council-and in fact, just about every Christian everywhere-already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to understand Jesus' divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human. Moreover, how could both Jesus and God be God if there is only one God? Those were the issues that were addressed at Nicea, not whether or not Jesus was divine. And there certainly was no vote to determine Jesus' divinity: this was already a matter of common knowledge among Christians, and had been from the early years of the religion"
If I may point you towards two recent books that labour the point Christ's divinity was not decided at the Council, nor did Constantine pressure the decision: "The Nicaean Legacy" and "A Brief History of the Trinity in the Early Church". Both are by two eminent scholars of Nicaea. They don't touch on whether the canon was decided at Nicaea for the simple reason no-one seriously suggests that it did.
I don't know what you mean by cleaning and editing by the Bishops. Could you elaborate further?
I also hope you don't mind my interaction with you and your post.
A. B.
"What does this (hypothetical) soul need to be saved from? The implication is that there is something inherently wrong with man that needs to be fixed, which is one of the foundations of the scam that is Christianity."
That was exacly my point way up in the discusion. Sin is a lie sold to us by religion. There is no such thing as sin. Only right and wrong.
For instance it would be wrong for me not to lie in order so save someone from hurt feelings or physical harm. Religion says it's a sin no matter what. Every situation is relative. I would certainly kill if it meant saving the life of one of my children.
And despite the fact that I am a happily married man, I feel no guilt what so ever for lusting after some of my young female coworkers, so long as nothing is acted upon.
In the early centuries of Christian history, various groups denied the divinity of Jesus. The Adoptionists taught that Jesus was born fully human, and was adopted as God's Son when John the Baptist baptised him (Mark 1:10) because of the life he lived. Another group, known as the Ebionites, taught that Jesus was not God, but the human Moshiach (messiah, anointed) prophet promised in the Old Testament. Arianism affirmed that Jesus was divine, but taught that he was nevertheless a created being ("there was when he was not"), less divine than God the Father.
Some of these views could be described as Unitarianism (although that is a modern term) in their insistence on the one-ness of God. These views, which directly affected how one understood the Godhead, were declared heresies by the Council of Nicaea. Throughout much of the rest of the ancient history of Christianity, Christologies that denied Christ's divinity ceased to have a major impact on the life of the church.
In the modern era, a number of denominations have rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, including the Christadelphians and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mainstream Christian churches usually regard these groups as modern versions of the Arian heresy.
And those solutions are better than those of Jesus because (a) the books contain wisdom accumulated by the human race through the ages, and (b) many make use of science and the findings are, therefore verifiable."
I fully agree with Lorena. Like I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I have been able to find a lot more helpful resources outside of the bible that has helped me to overcome my bad situations in life.
I find it sad and quiet disturbing to see people who are afraid to step outside the boundaries of christianity to find help that produces results.
It seems that people who refuse to do so are the one's who are truly living in bondage.
It was suggested one time that I should get rid of my secular therapist and start seeing my christian therapist again, because this same person did not approve of my therapist's methods or beliefs.
The same person told me that it did not matter that I was now achieving success again. He told me that I needed to go back to seeing my christian therapist again, who was unsuccessful in helping me overcome my problems.
That's how delusional a lot of christians are. Instead of moving forward and making progress, some of them would rather go backwards and sabotage their progress. That type of thinking just proves how destructive and damaging all forms of religion can be.
I don't really see the direct purpose; the issue is surrounding Nicaea and the early and uniform belief in the deity of Christ. No-one can dispute that belief in Christ's deity can be found from the earliest records from all over the Empire (including the N.T. texts)not a later Gentile or Imperial creation.
To say these groups aforementioned denied Christ's deity is wrong- they do have nuances within their Christology that don't comport fully with Nicean theology though. Adoptionists believed Jesus was fully divine, they dispute when this happened- for them it occured at his baptism. Jesus was a normal man until he was baptized, at this point the incarnation occured and Jesus became divine, rather than at conception. I have already posted a quote from Ehrman that succintly shows the Arian view that should suffice. The only group that does deny Christ's deity was a marginal heretical group, the Ebionites. Ebionite scholarship is currently in flux. There are a increasingly skepticism of the Father's account of them, with the later Father's account not crediting them with genuine heretical beliefs. See 'Jewish Believers in Jesus'
Skarsaune, Oskar and Reidar Hvalvik (eds.)2007 and 'Jews or Christians?' The Followers of Jesus in Search of their Own Identity.' Jossa, Giorgio 2007 and 'Ebionites and Nazoreans, Petri Luomanen', University of Helsinki also 2007. Luomanen argues the Nazoreans are in particular inventions of Ephiphanius. They are a strange, marginal, group that to be honest we don't know enough about.
Hope that clears that up webmaster.
A.B.
rejecting Christianity or any ingrained religion is that it leaves a void that is very hard to fill and devout atheists
can be just as bad as devout Christians when it comes to faith or the lack of. Both expound dogmas of absolutes and any scientist, researcher, artist, or person of knowledge will tell you anything they find to be true is always subject to be proven false or further information
makes their findings obsolete. The greatest minds of our human history believed in a higher power but nothing substantiates that entity but human thought. As I said, but apparently has not been understood, we are what we think we are. When I make the statement I made that "We are all that we see, hear, touch, feel, and experience. In my opinion, our soul is divine and perfect and has the 'grace' to animate our flesh," it is opinion not fact, it is a way of life I've chosen that does not bring a a colorful mythical deity, creature, or person into play. The preciousnes and energy of life is what I buy into and I don't have to defend that with countless examples of life being created all over this planet and the species of man not being able to recreate those elements to create life in the lab, regardless of the technology used. Now, I'm not going to expound absolutes and there may come a day when that's possible, but for now I like my ideas they are as good as the idea that "she" doesn't exist, or any other entity either. I don't feel the need to parse words because they "sound" religious I can communicate with abarton without agreeing with him, or abiet pull my sword out and behead him. That's what civilized people try to do, tolerate and foster growth among themselves. That's what I'm all about, not just a decontructive force but a reconstructive one, building on top of what is already there. I don't give much credence to ancient history as to live my life without it is to come to the same conclusions that I have now. It is of a personal belief I neither try to gain conversions for a better place in the afterlife, nor have a self-serving agenda. I live, I laugh, I ponder the days I'm given breath. The rest is just not worth losing lives to proclaim allegiance and absolute devotion.
Religion is not essential to live, it is however a cause for much bloodshed as people
cannot control their emotions and it is precisely that, that has caused a world of sorrow throughout human history.
I leave this thread with the following quote from the Rig Veda, if not the oldest, probably one the oldest texts known to man:
He who knows all things,
He knows.
Or does he know.
Peace and long life to all
Is it not a problem of any idealogy that takes over so completely it distorts and become greater than any other natural human intent. As I think about it so patriotism can also be culpable e.g. E.T.A.'s recent bombing campaign.
What do you think? Or have I missed the point?
A.B.
you are precisely correct, that is the "jist" of the last comment. Go to http://onlymoments.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/rah-rah-rah-rabid-fans-john-nash-and-the-human-condition/ to see my blog that centers around this secular phenomena.
There now, what I see is that we have a basis for communication between two intelligent people of two diverse beliefs.......that's progressive.
Fundamentalist atheism? Odd? I think you are mistaken. I think that it wasn't atheism but a type of state/leader worship that caused the conflicts of which you speak.
This has been addressed here many times. Are you useing something the pope wrote about recently as your source? If so see this thred here.
As you noted yourself, the Ebionites were indeed an exception to this. They viewed Jesus as being a Messiah in the more traditional Jewish sense--i.e. a divinely inspired human, but not a deity himself. But I think there is a much more important distinction to make. While I believe the majority of Christians did indeed view "Christ" as being divine (at least by the 2nd century), not all of them thought of "Christ" as being incarnate. In fact, that was not the orthodox view until nearly the end of the 2nd century. The case can be made from many sources.
For example, "Octavius" by Minucius Felix (circa 160 CE) is a dialog between a pagan and a Christian. Minucius Felix makes it clear that he (through the voice of the Christian) has no belief in the divinity of the "crucified criminal". While acknowledging that some hold this view, he rejects it as an "indecency". He thought it absurd to suggest that a god could beget a son.
Justin Martyr (circa 130 CE) chronicles the beliefs of other Christians (at about the time of his conversion) who viewed "Christ" as Logos or "wisdom"--a spiritual entity, not a man. This was apparently a very widely-held view throughout much of the 2nd century.
Theophilus (bishop at Antioch, circa 170 CE) never once mentions "Jesus" in his writings, and does not even allude to a human founder. To him "Christ" is a spirit. He explicitly states that the doctrine of Christianity came not from a man, but directly from god.
Of course, there were some who did view Jesus as god incarnate, including Justin. But from their writings we can gain some idea of how their savior compared to others. For example, Tatian's "Apology" (circa 160 CE) compares Jesus to other popular myths. He implicitly acknowledges that there were many such beliefs predating those of the Christians. He said "Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories." However, in his own theological writings, Tatian never uses the word "Jesus" or "Christ"; he uses only "Logos". Minucius Felix also acknowledges the more ancient myth of Osiris, who was believed to have died (by dismemberment) and risen again (after being anointed with oil by women).
As for Mithra, it is absolutely true that Mithaism was heavily influenced by Christianity in Rome during the first four centuries of the Common Era. However, it is equally true that Mithaism influenced Christianity. The two religions were essentially rivals. The borrowing of Mithraic artistic motifs is well-documented, although it's much harder to say anything definitive about doctrines. It's also true that the Roman version of Mithrism diverged from the Persian beliefs, as happens whenever a religion gains a foothold in a new culture. However, the notion of Mithra as a savior god-man clearly goes back to the Persian roots.
Numerous other savior god-men were also well-known in the Roman empire at the beginning of the Common Era. For example, Attis and Adonis were honored with lavish annual celebrations in the streets of Rome. They reenacted the slaying and subsequent resurrection of these gods as part of their ritual. St. Augustine himself documents these during the first half of the second century, and he notes the great antiquity of the rituals. Nowhere does he suggest that they borrowed from Christianity (much as he would have liked to).
My point in all of this is that there were undeniably numerous religions predating Christianity that incorporated many of the motifs that now appear in Christianity. To suggest that these more ancient religions borrowed from one another but that Christianity did not borrow anything is special pleading. C. S. Lewis even acknowledged the many great similarities between Christianity and more ancient beliefs, as do some of the very early church fathers. In fact, they had to come up with some very creative explanations for this, such as attributing it to Satan's attempt to confuse by anticipating the events of Christianity.
My secondary point is that Christianity did not begin as a unified religion focused on a human who was believed to be the son of god. That did not become the orthodox view until the 2nd century. Whether the majority thought "Christ" to be divine is overshadowed by the question as to whether they thought of "Christ" as incarnate. Clearly, not all of the early apologists did.
From wikipedia:"However, some prominent early Christians, e.g. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr actually acknowledged the existence of parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery."
"what I see is that we have a basis for communication between two intelligent people of two diverse beliefs..."
I was kind of going along with that but right on cue the "more people have been killed in the name of fundamentalist atheism" canard came up. Lorena's the one on the right track here - the sooner we dispense with nonexistent gods, spirits and "supernatural" beings the better.
link
Now you’ve just erected a straw man. Very few, if any, atheists consider the non-existence of god a dogma, and most atheists i’ve seen on the Web agree with you 100% that what they believe is subject to disproof. We disbelieve in God because of lack of evidence, not as a dogma.
_________________
@A. Barton:
“Fundamentalist atheism” in its entirety is “I don’t believe that any gods exist.” That’s all. No more, no less. One needs a lot more than, well, nothing to excuse mass murder. You’re probably confusing atheism with communism as practiced.
Okay, honestly now, what on earth is a "devout atheist"????? Seriously, how does lacking belief in something make someone "devout"? Christians lack belief in Allah, yes? Does that make, and/or, signify "devoutness"?...or do Christians simply disbelieve in said deity?
Nick...[devout atheists] can be just as bad as devout Christians when it comes to faith or the lack of.
I just went over how lack of belief in something does not require any extra "devotion", or anything else "extra". The same holds true for "Faith", and so, I'll pose the same analogy: Christians don't believe in Allah. Does that non-belief therefore require "Faith", or "hope" of any sort? 'Didn't think so.
But wait, let's just hypothesize for a moment that what you say is true--that non-belief "requires Faith", or makes one "devout".
Okay, any Christian---what do you seek to gain by establishing this seemingly child-like "tit-for-tat" argument? Are you saying that to be "devout" and to have "Faith" is weak and undesirable, therefore, "the Atheist position is weak and undesirable JUST LIKE MINE!!!"? Please clarify, but bear in mind that this is just for hypothetical purposes---the Atheist position requires ZERO "Faith". Moreover, the Atheist position isn't saying "God is disproven"...they are saying that God is unproven.
Dogma=An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
Both responses are arguing about parsed words and like splitting hairs on scripture, canons, and "holy" writings trying to tear down a postulate and/or opinion with irrelevant posturizations of what the words I used mean. They mean what the above definitions say. Ergo, atheists can be devout atheists, as they can espouse adently, selfless affection and dedication, as to a principle such as atheism
And a dogma or dogmatic athiest has an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true in that they do not believe or espouse the lack thereof, of a god.
The words have meaning but please try to understand the concepts of what they mean out of your normal context of religion, that which you seem very uncomfortable with, and therefore lend credence to wanting to misunderstand the terms.
No one is challenging your devotion (I know you love that word) and (non)beliefs of atheism. I only point out that when one takes a stand and defends it rigourously they sometimes negate any and all other possibilities and that can be dangerous on any level.
Dear freaks, Jaysus if he ever existed is loooong since dead, and God is not awesome, it is imaginary.
If you want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, there are numerous websites available for this purpose.
Please go back to your caves.
I have certainly met a lot of fundie atheists. I met one the other day in a bookshop when I was looking through Dawkin's latest book. A man sidled up and started talking to me about Dawkins and his conversion to atheist. He made some good valid points but I also felt that I had something to say in response to his claims. But he literally stopped me talking and barged in with his own rhetoric and idiom. I was standing, it gradually became clear to me, in the presence of a Fundamentalist. All the marks were there in his speeches to me – a strong identification with an atheist subculture/group, talk of a strong and definite 'conversion' point, an inability to listen to a questioning of his authority, a total lack of awareness that he was unable to truly dialogue, the immediate and false pigeonholing of his 'opponents' etc.
I must say I have seen this in my brief stay on this board. It is the same experience as I have had when I run into Christian fundies. I tell a KJV onlyist he is wrong and I'm insulted and cast as an idiot, tell a 6 day creationist he is wrong and often you get the same result. Same here, I have been insulted by three different people saying some pretty derogatory things on this board for no reason other than they identified me as a Christian. I am immediately questions, insulted and viewed as obtuse and the reason I do not agree with their views. My response to you was one borne out of an academic concern, that you were saying things that weren't historically verifiable. But you pigeonholed me as saying you were wrong because "
Fanatics and obstinate believers of “their God only” will always distort, smokescreen, deliniate, obscure, and alter these facts to their advantage. Always."
I have been called a liar, told to go to the middle east, that I will get my ass kicked. And why? I don't know........
Fundamentalists can kill and hurt those who do not agree with them. Yes communism killed many for many reasons. One of those was religion. Their communision had a deep attachtment to atheism, even if you were a good loyal comrade of the Russian state but practiced religion you could be killed or deported to Siberia. Any idealogy that becomes fundamental has this potential. Your statement is valid and you (in my opinon) made it very accurately and succintly. But you should include nationalism and atheism.
Largely not though, most I am atheists I am friends with are nice and can deal with me normally (which I would be far more open to a atheist talk on this website were there not so much hate flying around!;) as are most religious people I meet.
Perhaps you can agree with me on this point: To assess a position, one should seek its strongest