ForgottenTcklr
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,835
- Points
- 36
I have to say that I am impressed to see people thouroughly thinking and discussing this. You know, this thread is like Biscuit's Early Experiences thread!
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Tickling/Religion/Guilt & Evil...
- Thread starter qjakal
- Start date
BigJim said:
Once you have kids, especially pre-teens, you will begin to believe in the doctrine of original sin 😀
In theology class I would have to say that orginal sin was not promoted as a way to control people. Rather it was a way to describe why people would do evil things. A way to explain why everyone when presented with the option to do evil will do evil. Not all the time, mind you, but at some time, everyone will do something evil.
omega said:
I'm not suggesting it would be. Dissemenating that sort of thing to the more honest people in the rank and file would be suicide. That would never happen. The sort of people I'm talking about would be much higher than "branch managers" and the like. It would be people who decided what church policies are. People like yourself would never be told the real reason behind a lot of policies and teachings. I don't mean to be insulting about your status by the way Omega, just explaining things as I see them after the research I've done.
It doesn't just stick to religion either. The same rule applies with different slants in finance, politics and the medical world too.
BigJim, glad ya could dig what I was sayin'. Only thing to mention was that Daoism/Taoism (toMAYto/toMAHto) and Wicca are the only exception to the otherwise accurate mention of large faiths being based out of the near east and middle east.
Oh, and color me pleased for seein' your well-written and well-thought contributions here. Never shut your mouth. Focus works better, and three focused contributions, especially the well-thought and well-humored ones, will always be superior to a million "me-toos". I dig your participation here.
Oddly enough, your perception of God as an ocean, and you a drop of/in it is mighty close to many faiths, includin' the sect of Huron spirituality on which I was raised, and the Daoist philosophy of our being part of a greater whole.
Omega, padre, your contributions here always ring so well. It shows well for your faith that you represent as you do. Somethin' you said sparked a reminder of a thought I'd had as a kid. Got in trouble for it, even. When discussin' how a body can be forgiven for ANYTHING if they renounce sin and accept Jesus, I was, as a youth, outraged, 'cause it meant that baby-killin' sociopaths could just say sorry and be saved. That was actually part of what soured me initially on Christianity. Hadda do a lot more readin', and growin', 'fore I figured out that your faith is as my creed has ever been - "It's all about the love". I find I agree with more in the New Testament than in the harsher Old Testament, and the harsher later teachings of Mohammed. Especially dug the line about folks casting stones. Too often will folks only criticize others.
Oh, and color me pleased for seein' your well-written and well-thought contributions here. Never shut your mouth. Focus works better, and three focused contributions, especially the well-thought and well-humored ones, will always be superior to a million "me-toos". I dig your participation here.
Oddly enough, your perception of God as an ocean, and you a drop of/in it is mighty close to many faiths, includin' the sect of Huron spirituality on which I was raised, and the Daoist philosophy of our being part of a greater whole.
Omega, padre, your contributions here always ring so well. It shows well for your faith that you represent as you do. Somethin' you said sparked a reminder of a thought I'd had as a kid. Got in trouble for it, even. When discussin' how a body can be forgiven for ANYTHING if they renounce sin and accept Jesus, I was, as a youth, outraged, 'cause it meant that baby-killin' sociopaths could just say sorry and be saved. That was actually part of what soured me initially on Christianity. Hadda do a lot more readin', and growin', 'fore I figured out that your faith is as my creed has ever been - "It's all about the love". I find I agree with more in the New Testament than in the harsher Old Testament, and the harsher later teachings of Mohammed. Especially dug the line about folks casting stones. Too often will folks only criticize others.
I'm glad you like my contributions D, even if they don't gel with yours. It's fun and informative to discuss differing opinions. Out of all the major religions and their off-shoots, the closest that came to my philosophy is one told to me by a work colleague who is a Mormon. (The Church Of Jesus Christ And The Latter Day Saints.) The only stumbling blocks to me joining said church and getting a lot out of it is that I don't believe in the literal existence of Jesus Christ and I know what most of the founding members and leading officials of that church have gotten up to over the years.
I didn't really count either Wicca or Taoism into my calcs really. I was refering to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Every one of them repeat the same stories, but with different name and every one of them have copied figures from pagan religions that go back millenia before Crist was even heard of. Omega once said that he believed that showed just how much evidence there was about the future coming of Christ, but he missed the fact that all those religions were refering to past events. Past events that were often centureys ago. They all had a father figure deity, a pure virgin mother and a holy son who walked among men and that died so sins could be forgiven. Not one of them refered to this happening in the future. They all refered to it as having happened in the past. When you've seen as much evidence as I have that Christianity is just recycled paganism with a new costume and a new name on the door; you are always skeptical about major religions.
I tend to search for spiritual clues among the beliefs of ancient native people's, before they were diluted and exterminated by missionaries. I don't pigeon hole myself into one culture, because I believe that hundreds of them together might provide the answers. Just because I don't follow Christianity any more, doesn't mean I don't read the Bible. The Bible isn't meaningless, it's just code. Code for the people to take literally and for people near the top to truly understand.
Anyway, that's enough waffling for now. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
P.S. My take on "deities" is that they are fields of energy that hold a collective consciousness. When someone is full of a low vibrational emotion like anger, guilt, fear or agression; they emanate those emotions as a thought pattern. A frequency if you will. If enough people do it (and God knows, there's enough on this planet who do!) then all those thought fields band together and create a consciousness that transcends an individual. Hey presto, you have Lucifer! (Or the Luciferan consciousness anyway.) Similarly, if a person emanates a high vibrational emotion such as compassion, acceptance, freedom and most of all, LOVE!!!, then they send out a much higher energy field. If enough people send that sort of wavelength out, then hey presto, you have a Christ consciousness! This means that every thought, every feeling, every single action you take (and indeed, every post you make on this forum!) affects the world around you. Every single, solitary person has access to unimaginable power that can be used to shape the world for the better or worse. For hundreds and thousands of years, guilt, misery, anger, agression, envy and bitterness have ruled the world. Is it any wonder why it's in such a state? Is it any wonder why we're afraid to go outdoors in case some bastard takes a pot shot at us? But get this........... it also means that we have the power to change it. We have the capability, as a people, to radically alter the world in the way it ticks. More and more people are waking up to the possibilities that lie within their soul and come hell or high water, the world will change!
I didn't really count either Wicca or Taoism into my calcs really. I was refering to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Every one of them repeat the same stories, but with different name and every one of them have copied figures from pagan religions that go back millenia before Crist was even heard of. Omega once said that he believed that showed just how much evidence there was about the future coming of Christ, but he missed the fact that all those religions were refering to past events. Past events that were often centureys ago. They all had a father figure deity, a pure virgin mother and a holy son who walked among men and that died so sins could be forgiven. Not one of them refered to this happening in the future. They all refered to it as having happened in the past. When you've seen as much evidence as I have that Christianity is just recycled paganism with a new costume and a new name on the door; you are always skeptical about major religions.
I tend to search for spiritual clues among the beliefs of ancient native people's, before they were diluted and exterminated by missionaries. I don't pigeon hole myself into one culture, because I believe that hundreds of them together might provide the answers. Just because I don't follow Christianity any more, doesn't mean I don't read the Bible. The Bible isn't meaningless, it's just code. Code for the people to take literally and for people near the top to truly understand.
Anyway, that's enough waffling for now. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
P.S. My take on "deities" is that they are fields of energy that hold a collective consciousness. When someone is full of a low vibrational emotion like anger, guilt, fear or agression; they emanate those emotions as a thought pattern. A frequency if you will. If enough people do it (and God knows, there's enough on this planet who do!) then all those thought fields band together and create a consciousness that transcends an individual. Hey presto, you have Lucifer! (Or the Luciferan consciousness anyway.) Similarly, if a person emanates a high vibrational emotion such as compassion, acceptance, freedom and most of all, LOVE!!!, then they send out a much higher energy field. If enough people send that sort of wavelength out, then hey presto, you have a Christ consciousness! This means that every thought, every feeling, every single action you take (and indeed, every post you make on this forum!) affects the world around you. Every single, solitary person has access to unimaginable power that can be used to shape the world for the better or worse. For hundreds and thousands of years, guilt, misery, anger, agression, envy and bitterness have ruled the world. Is it any wonder why it's in such a state? Is it any wonder why we're afraid to go outdoors in case some bastard takes a pot shot at us? But get this........... it also means that we have the power to change it. We have the capability, as a people, to radically alter the world in the way it ticks. More and more people are waking up to the possibilities that lie within their soul and come hell or high water, the world will change!
Existence of Jesus
Earliest reference to Jesus reported on limestone bone box from 63 A.D.
By Art Toalston
Oct 22, 2002
WASHINGTON (BP)--A limestone bone box dating to approximately 63 A.D. is being heralded as "the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity," according to the Biblical Archaeology Review.
It is "the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate biblical references to Jesus," the journal states.
The existence of the box, roughly 20 inches long, 10 inches wide and 12 inches high, was announced Oct. 21 at a news conference in Washington, D.C.
It apparently once contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus. An inscription on the box reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
An extensive article about the limestone box, called an "ossuary," appears in the November-December issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review, published by the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology Society. The article is titled, "Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus."
The journal's website notes in part:
"The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual -- indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure."
Of the ossuary's authenticity, the website notes:
Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel note that the "thin sheen ... that forms on stone and other materials over time ... shows no trace of modern elements." As stated in a letter from the Israeli agency, "No signs of the use of a modern tool or instrument was [sic] found. No evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the [covering residue] and the inscription was found."
James has been widely regarded in Christian history not only as Jesus' brother, but as the leader of the church at Jerusalem once he became a believer in one of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. James also is widely regarded as the author of the New Testament Book of James. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, James was killed by Jewish authorities around A.D. 62.
The burial box of James was purchased about 15 years ago for $700 or less by a private collector in Jerusalem who wishes to remain anonymous, according to news reports. The collector was told at the time it had been unearthed near the Mount of Olives. The collector, a Jew, had no idea of its significance until a conversation last spring with Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at the Sorbonne University in Paris, who subsequently authored the Biblical Archaeology Review article.
"Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty," the journal's website notes. "Its history prior to its current ownership is not known."
Of the use of limestone boxes containing bones of the deceased, the website states:
"In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone."
The website also notes, "Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected."
The inscription is in Aramaic, the common language among Jews of the first century.
Steven M. Ortiz, assistant professor of archaeology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press, "Based on initial reports, the find appears to be authentic. Dr. Lemaire is a noted paleographer of distinction and is familiar with authenticating actual epigraphic finds and possible forgeries.
"This chance find is going to have a tremendous impact on New Testament scholarship," Ortiz stated.
"This is not going to impact the scholarly community in regards to whether Jesus was an actual person, as most scholars acknowledge the historicity of Jesus," he noted. Rather: "The find will have its greatest influence/impact on placing Jesus back in his first century B.C. Jewish context," he said, countering "a trend to interpret Jesus within a non-Jewish environment and reevaluate the nature of the Jewish Galilean community."
It also is important for the church because "it helps refocus the context of Jesus," Ortiz said. "There is a tendency to create Jesus in our 21st-century image. The church tends to mold the teachings of Jesus within the context of the issues facing the church, instead of molding the issues facing the church to the message and teachings of Jesus."
Mark F. Rooker, professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press, "There are already some who doubt the validity of this archaeological find, and I am sure it will be thoroughly examined by archaeologists.
"If it is not a hoax," Rooker said, "one interesting thing about the description of James is that in addition to mentioning his father -- the normal way to identify yourself in biblical times -- it is also mentioned that his brother was Jesus. This would make a great deal of sense if, in fact, this was the James, son of Mary and Joseph, who was from the same family of the God incarnate, Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit when Mary (James' mother) was still a virgin."
Prior to the Oct. 21 announcement of the bone box, the earliest historical mention of Jesus was in a papyrus fragment from the Gospel of John, written in Greek in about A.D. 125.
Hundreds of ossuaries have been found in recent years, according to Christianity Today, including one likely containing the bones of the high priest Caiaphas from the Gospels. Researcher Lemaire from the Sorbonne estimated there may have been as many as 20 Jameses with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph among Jerusalem's 40,000 residents at the time, according to a CNN report. But, Lemaire noted, it is unlikely there was more than one Jesus meriting the distinction of a reference on his brother's ossuary. Only one other existent ossuary has a reference to a deceased person's brother and father, Lemaire reported.
"The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. "It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world's understanding of the Bible." The journal's website is www.bib-arch.org.
--30--
Shannon Baker and Kelly Davis contributed to this article. (BP) photo posted in the BP Photo Library at <a href="http://www.bpnews.net">www.bpnews.net</a>. Photo title: 'JAMES ... THE BROTHER OF JESUS.
Copyright (c) 2001 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press
901 Commerce Street
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615.244.2355
Fax: 615.782.8736
email: [email protected]
Earliest reference to Jesus reported on limestone bone box from 63 A.D.
By Art Toalston
Oct 22, 2002
WASHINGTON (BP)--A limestone bone box dating to approximately 63 A.D. is being heralded as "the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity," according to the Biblical Archaeology Review.
It is "the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate biblical references to Jesus," the journal states.
The existence of the box, roughly 20 inches long, 10 inches wide and 12 inches high, was announced Oct. 21 at a news conference in Washington, D.C.
It apparently once contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus. An inscription on the box reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
An extensive article about the limestone box, called an "ossuary," appears in the November-December issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review, published by the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology Society. The article is titled, "Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus."
The journal's website notes in part:
"The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual -- indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure."
Of the ossuary's authenticity, the website notes:
Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel note that the "thin sheen ... that forms on stone and other materials over time ... shows no trace of modern elements." As stated in a letter from the Israeli agency, "No signs of the use of a modern tool or instrument was [sic] found. No evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the [covering residue] and the inscription was found."
James has been widely regarded in Christian history not only as Jesus' brother, but as the leader of the church at Jerusalem once he became a believer in one of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. James also is widely regarded as the author of the New Testament Book of James. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, James was killed by Jewish authorities around A.D. 62.
The burial box of James was purchased about 15 years ago for $700 or less by a private collector in Jerusalem who wishes to remain anonymous, according to news reports. The collector was told at the time it had been unearthed near the Mount of Olives. The collector, a Jew, had no idea of its significance until a conversation last spring with Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at the Sorbonne University in Paris, who subsequently authored the Biblical Archaeology Review article.
"Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty," the journal's website notes. "Its history prior to its current ownership is not known."
Of the use of limestone boxes containing bones of the deceased, the website states:
"In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone."
The website also notes, "Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected."
The inscription is in Aramaic, the common language among Jews of the first century.
Steven M. Ortiz, assistant professor of archaeology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press, "Based on initial reports, the find appears to be authentic. Dr. Lemaire is a noted paleographer of distinction and is familiar with authenticating actual epigraphic finds and possible forgeries.
"This chance find is going to have a tremendous impact on New Testament scholarship," Ortiz stated.
"This is not going to impact the scholarly community in regards to whether Jesus was an actual person, as most scholars acknowledge the historicity of Jesus," he noted. Rather: "The find will have its greatest influence/impact on placing Jesus back in his first century B.C. Jewish context," he said, countering "a trend to interpret Jesus within a non-Jewish environment and reevaluate the nature of the Jewish Galilean community."
It also is important for the church because "it helps refocus the context of Jesus," Ortiz said. "There is a tendency to create Jesus in our 21st-century image. The church tends to mold the teachings of Jesus within the context of the issues facing the church, instead of molding the issues facing the church to the message and teachings of Jesus."
Mark F. Rooker, professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press, "There are already some who doubt the validity of this archaeological find, and I am sure it will be thoroughly examined by archaeologists.
"If it is not a hoax," Rooker said, "one interesting thing about the description of James is that in addition to mentioning his father -- the normal way to identify yourself in biblical times -- it is also mentioned that his brother was Jesus. This would make a great deal of sense if, in fact, this was the James, son of Mary and Joseph, who was from the same family of the God incarnate, Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit when Mary (James' mother) was still a virgin."
Prior to the Oct. 21 announcement of the bone box, the earliest historical mention of Jesus was in a papyrus fragment from the Gospel of John, written in Greek in about A.D. 125.
Hundreds of ossuaries have been found in recent years, according to Christianity Today, including one likely containing the bones of the high priest Caiaphas from the Gospels. Researcher Lemaire from the Sorbonne estimated there may have been as many as 20 Jameses with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph among Jerusalem's 40,000 residents at the time, according to a CNN report. But, Lemaire noted, it is unlikely there was more than one Jesus meriting the distinction of a reference on his brother's ossuary. Only one other existent ossuary has a reference to a deceased person's brother and father, Lemaire reported.
"The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. "It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world's understanding of the Bible." The journal's website is www.bib-arch.org.
--30--
Shannon Baker and Kelly Davis contributed to this article. (BP) photo posted in the BP Photo Library at <a href="http://www.bpnews.net">www.bpnews.net</a>. Photo title: 'JAMES ... THE BROTHER OF JESUS.
Copyright (c) 2001 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press
901 Commerce Street
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615.244.2355
Fax: 615.782.8736
email: [email protected]
Re: Existence of Jesus
I did read that the whole way through Padre, but in light of Dave's request in another thread am just focusing on these two parts, as they're the most telling ones for my point of view.
Control (or influence) over people's hearts and minds is the most valuable thing for some people. The Roman Empire could send soldiers to occupy a village in Palestine. They could wave a few hundred gladius' about and get people ducking. But they could NEVER control people's hears and minds. The Empire just wasn't that influential; especially that far out on it's borders.
A figure like Christ would have posed more of a threat to them, than an invading army twice the size of all Rome's forces put together. And yet, those three excerpts above prove something very telling.
The Roman Empire had the singlemost efficient and detailed system of records of any Empire in the world, right up to the comparativley modern French and British ones. It outstripped even the dual Egyptian Empire of millenia past in it's abilities and records. And yet NOWHERE in it's records is there any trace of a figure who nearly brought the whole shebang down top of the emperor's head. Nowhere. That box, is at the moment (I hope you'll keep us informed if things changed padre) uncorroberated and unverified. All they can say at the moment is that it "seems to be related" and that there "may have been as many as 20 James' with brothers named Jesus. (Or Yeshua, to give him his actual name.)
Apart from that, the only "proofs" of his existence have been in the gospel texts. There is not a single shred of proof that could influence me (And believe me, I am an influenceable person, no matter what I may seem like!) into believeing that he existed at that time, as a physical figure. I have also come across evidence (not in a coherant and presentable form as yet, although if anyone is interested I will inform y'all as the situation updates itself) that the gospels were'nt written by four guys of the time called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Figures with those names may have existed at that time, but the gospels are far more likely to be been written by a combination of the LEvite priesthood and the Piso familly, starting around 50 or 60 AD.
I believe in what I call the "Christ consciousness" certainly. I also believe that it's possible for human beings (or divine spirits in physical human bodies) to be able to heal spiritually and do many of the things that are attributed to Him. It's not as if I disbelieve in what He was capable of doing, or that such a high level spirit could exist in the genetic spacesuit we call the human body. I'm not a "if I can't touch it in a lab, then it doesn't exist" type of person at all. I just doubt the reasons behind the creations of all major religions. I have a collossal amount of evidence, that shows christianity to be nothing more than re-cycled and re-named paganism. None of it in the shape of exhibit A and exhibit B,it's all historical records and different texts from different times in different parts of the world. But as is so often the case with matters of the soul....... it's down to what you feel in your heart.
Omega, from what you've said I'm sure that you provide a very welcome and valuable service in your community. Never stop.
omega said:
I did read that the whole way through Padre, but in light of Dave's request in another thread am just focusing on these two parts, as they're the most telling ones for my point of view.
Control (or influence) over people's hearts and minds is the most valuable thing for some people. The Roman Empire could send soldiers to occupy a village in Palestine. They could wave a few hundred gladius' about and get people ducking. But they could NEVER control people's hears and minds. The Empire just wasn't that influential; especially that far out on it's borders.
A figure like Christ would have posed more of a threat to them, than an invading army twice the size of all Rome's forces put together. And yet, those three excerpts above prove something very telling.
The Roman Empire had the singlemost efficient and detailed system of records of any Empire in the world, right up to the comparativley modern French and British ones. It outstripped even the dual Egyptian Empire of millenia past in it's abilities and records. And yet NOWHERE in it's records is there any trace of a figure who nearly brought the whole shebang down top of the emperor's head. Nowhere. That box, is at the moment (I hope you'll keep us informed if things changed padre) uncorroberated and unverified. All they can say at the moment is that it "seems to be related" and that there "may have been as many as 20 James' with brothers named Jesus. (Or Yeshua, to give him his actual name.)
Apart from that, the only "proofs" of his existence have been in the gospel texts. There is not a single shred of proof that could influence me (And believe me, I am an influenceable person, no matter what I may seem like!) into believeing that he existed at that time, as a physical figure. I have also come across evidence (not in a coherant and presentable form as yet, although if anyone is interested I will inform y'all as the situation updates itself) that the gospels were'nt written by four guys of the time called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Figures with those names may have existed at that time, but the gospels are far more likely to be been written by a combination of the LEvite priesthood and the Piso familly, starting around 50 or 60 AD.
I believe in what I call the "Christ consciousness" certainly. I also believe that it's possible for human beings (or divine spirits in physical human bodies) to be able to heal spiritually and do many of the things that are attributed to Him. It's not as if I disbelieve in what He was capable of doing, or that such a high level spirit could exist in the genetic spacesuit we call the human body. I'm not a "if I can't touch it in a lab, then it doesn't exist" type of person at all. I just doubt the reasons behind the creations of all major religions. I have a collossal amount of evidence, that shows christianity to be nothing more than re-cycled and re-named paganism. None of it in the shape of exhibit A and exhibit B,it's all historical records and different texts from different times in different parts of the world. But as is so often the case with matters of the soul....... it's down to what you feel in your heart.
Omega, from what you've said I'm sure that you provide a very welcome and valuable service in your community. Never stop.
Big Jim,
I agree that the article I posted describes this discovery in the very early stages of investigation. I just thought it was interesting and wanted to share it in light of some of your comments. If I read any more insights about this I will share. Even if the findings don't point to the existence of Jesus.
In regards to your remarks about the record keeping of the Romans. You need to check out the writings of historians and other non-Christians such as Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and perhaps the earliest known historian to mention Jesus, Thallus.
Around A.D. 52 Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. In the third book of his histories he reports about the death of Jesus and the period of darkness. He tries to describe away the darkness as a solar eclipse, which is impossible since it was a full moon at the time of the death of Jesus.
BTW, I wish people would stop trying to tip toe around me by infering that I seem to be a decent guy and I must be doing some good in spite of my beliefs which every intellegient person knows are really some myths from a Christ conciousness.
I am a big boy now. I don't need for you to hold back your punches. I probably get worse abuse from a few "Christians" in my church.
I agree that the article I posted describes this discovery in the very early stages of investigation. I just thought it was interesting and wanted to share it in light of some of your comments. If I read any more insights about this I will share. Even if the findings don't point to the existence of Jesus.
In regards to your remarks about the record keeping of the Romans. You need to check out the writings of historians and other non-Christians such as Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and perhaps the earliest known historian to mention Jesus, Thallus.
Around A.D. 52 Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. In the third book of his histories he reports about the death of Jesus and the period of darkness. He tries to describe away the darkness as a solar eclipse, which is impossible since it was a full moon at the time of the death of Jesus.
BTW, I wish people would stop trying to tip toe around me by infering that I seem to be a decent guy and I must be doing some good in spite of my beliefs which every intellegient person knows are really some myths from a Christ conciousness.
I am a big boy now. I don't need for you to hold back your punches. I probably get worse abuse from a few "Christians" in my church.
omega said:
I wasn't tip-toeing around you padre, I was making a genuine observation based on what you said about the way your community church was run.
I didn't pull any punches in the other where we discussed this same matter a few months ago. In fact if I remember correctly, I was more than a little sarcastic, which given thinking time, was beneath me. I think it was the thread where I named about 30 different deities who were all described in exactly the same circumstances as Jesus, in different parts of the world and at different times. As this thread has such a wide audience now, I'll dig that info out from somewhere and use it to explain just why I believe what I do.
Make one thing clear though. IF a conspiracy/agenda exists to control the masses through symbolic and not literal religious beliefs, I am not accusing you of being part of it. I don't know you well obviously, but you seem to be heartfelt in your beliefs, not a con-man. I also don't think that you hold a position high enough that IF there was a conspiracy, you'd be a part of it. So while we disagree, I'm not accusing you of nowt. 😉
And by the way, intelligence has nothing to do with it either. There are millions of people with high IQ's who follow one religious doctrine or another. Just because I follow something different and not covered in any scripture, doesn't mean I think you're an idiot. I hope you realise that.
Big Jim,
I do apologize for my reaction. I don't know why I accused you and anyone else of tip toeing around me. It is just that I don't take personally anything said about churches and religions, including Christianity. My reaction may have been a way of saying that the constant reminding that people here think I am a good person was making me feel like everyone was taking pity on me. I know that my reaction was wrong and I do thank everyone who has been welcoming and friendly.
You are right about me not having much influence beyond my local area. I have made it a life goal to never hold a conference or denominational position. As far as higher church/religious leaders having a desire to control the masses: I would have trouble believing it among major religions. There seems to be a lot of fragmentation among them. Look at how many American Roman Catholics have affection for the pope and then live any which way they want regardless of what he says.
BTW Jim, when you were part of a church was it Church of England or Methodist or Baptist or what? If you don't mind answering.
I do apologize for my reaction. I don't know why I accused you and anyone else of tip toeing around me. It is just that I don't take personally anything said about churches and religions, including Christianity. My reaction may have been a way of saying that the constant reminding that people here think I am a good person was making me feel like everyone was taking pity on me. I know that my reaction was wrong and I do thank everyone who has been welcoming and friendly.
You are right about me not having much influence beyond my local area. I have made it a life goal to never hold a conference or denominational position. As far as higher church/religious leaders having a desire to control the masses: I would have trouble believing it among major religions. There seems to be a lot of fragmentation among them. Look at how many American Roman Catholics have affection for the pope and then live any which way they want regardless of what he says.
BTW Jim, when you were part of a church was it Church of England or Methodist or Baptist or what? If you don't mind answering.
Danger Will Robinson Danger!
Awwwwoooohie... *insert siren noise*....Alert! Alert!
Poor BigJim...guess you didn't read the whole thread or else you'd have seen the section where Omega "verbally judoed" the crap outta my younger pre-Mod self! Watch yourself bud...this guy is tricky! You don't need to hold back on him at all, believe you me!
Btw, gents, very good reading the last few pages, and some thought provoking new ideas have begun to seep through my lead lined skull into the vacuum behind my eyeballs!
Good luck batting historical accuracy around...it's a doozy! Q
Awwwwoooohie... *insert siren noise*....Alert! Alert!
Poor BigJim...guess you didn't read the whole thread or else you'd have seen the section where Omega "verbally judoed" the crap outta my younger pre-Mod self! Watch yourself bud...this guy is tricky! You don't need to hold back on him at all, believe you me!
Btw, gents, very good reading the last few pages, and some thought provoking new ideas have begun to seep through my lead lined skull into the vacuum behind my eyeballs!
Good luck batting historical accuracy around...it's a doozy! Q
ForgottenTcklr
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,835
- Points
- 36
I guess in this we really have to look at the meaning of the word sin, and exactly what is considered a sin.
Since this idea stems from posts made by Scott, we have to assume that our line of thinking at this point is from the Christian perspective. This understanding of sin then would come from the Law created by God. It is hard to determine with the small amount of subjects LITERALLY covered by the Law, that which is included therin.
How are we to interpert the Law... is it to be made so that everything not covered is sin, or that everything not covered is not sin? Where do we then draw the lines? Paul himself said in Romans 7:7 "I would not have come to know sin unless it were for the Law, for I would not have known about coveting the Law if the law had not said "Thou shall not Covet.""
So where here do we fall into sin. I'd say yes on the most part. But it is man's nature to sin, and no matter what stage of life he/she is at sin stays a prominent issue.
Paul later says in the same chapter of Romans verse 15 "for I am not practing what I would like to do, yet I am doing the very things which I hate." A struggle man can never fully win.
*Keep in mind that I am portraying only ONE viewpoint (the Christian one). It is a matter of opinion, and I am not calling the members of this forum out as sinners, more likely am I calling myself a hypocrite for going against my own beliefs. *
I love you guys!
Since this idea stems from posts made by Scott, we have to assume that our line of thinking at this point is from the Christian perspective. This understanding of sin then would come from the Law created by God. It is hard to determine with the small amount of subjects LITERALLY covered by the Law, that which is included therin.
How are we to interpert the Law... is it to be made so that everything not covered is sin, or that everything not covered is not sin? Where do we then draw the lines? Paul himself said in Romans 7:7 "I would not have come to know sin unless it were for the Law, for I would not have known about coveting the Law if the law had not said "Thou shall not Covet.""
So where here do we fall into sin. I'd say yes on the most part. But it is man's nature to sin, and no matter what stage of life he/she is at sin stays a prominent issue.
Paul later says in the same chapter of Romans verse 15 "for I am not practing what I would like to do, yet I am doing the very things which I hate." A struggle man can never fully win.
*Keep in mind that I am portraying only ONE viewpoint (the Christian one). It is a matter of opinion, and I am not calling the members of this forum out as sinners, more likely am I calling myself a hypocrite for going against my own beliefs. *
I love you guys!
A bit of my religious and spiritual history. (Warning: This is gonna be a long one!)
To answer your question Omega (yes I'm happy to), I was christened in the Church Of England. I believed everything I was told until I was about 6, when critical faculty started developing, and I started to lose interest. However............
In (I think) 1992 when I was 14 years old, there were several appeals on the TV for a young girl called Laura Davies. She needed a multiple organ transplant and the NHS had neither the inclination, money or skilled surgeons to be arsed to save her life. There were huge public fundraising events to generate money for her to go to America to receive the treatment she needed. She was desperatley ill, with tumours all over her kidneys, lungs, heart, liver etc and all of them needed replacing. The public managed to raise about £175,000 for her, but she needed £350,000 for the trip. It was about this time I started praying for her; not just for her money, but for a full recovery as well. It was the first serious piece of religious activity I'd done since I was a pre and infant schooler. (Apart from what different schools had forced me to do as part of their curriculum.) When the money reached £175k it seemed as if the nation was exhausted with all it had done and just could'nt go any further. Appeals were on the TV every night with the news, but all hope seemed lost. At this time something rather unique happened. An anonymous arab sheik stepped in and paid the remaining £175k out of his own pocket. Ta-dah!!!!!
Laura Davies (she was 4 years old, or so) went to America and duly had all of her organs removed and replaced. Things went quietly for about 10 days and then tumours started sprouting all over the new organs like spring onions. It would take yet another operation to stop her dying, for the cost of £250,000. If it came off, this was the last chance she'd have, because her frail body would'nt be able to take any more abuse than that. Five days or so went by and people were talking about it on the TV, the fundraising started again; raising the staggering sum of three and sixpence.
I was on my knees every night and every morning. By now, it had developed into a life thing. She had started me off, but now it was part of my life and while I always mentioned her, I was praying for everything else the average Christian did. The Lord's Prayer seemed to cover most of it, and luckily enough I could remember it from saying it every day for Baphomet knows how many years in school assembly.
When all seemed lost yet again, the same arab sheik stepped in for a second time. He put up the entire £250,000 for the second operation and paid for her whole family to fly over to be with her too. The operation duly went ahead and she came out of it fine. The operation hadn't killed her, but it was touch and go to see if her condition would.
Sure enough about two weeks after the second transplant, tumours started growing again on what was by now her third set of organs. About a week after they came back, complications arose from it and she slipped away. At the time I was miserable as hell. This girl had captured the heart of a whole nation and had turned me into a practicing Christian by giving me the need to appeal to higher quarters for her. Unlike some who might have found themselves in my position, I didn't blame God or turn against my new found faith because she'd died. I sensed the paper-thin transience of this "dimension" even then. I wondered about a lot of things and wondered if her purpose in life might have been to raise people who were low and cut off from spirituality, into the realms where they could have raised levels of spiritual awareness. To my thinking then, that seemed to be the way that God might work. To pick a small and vulnerable child and have her be an instrument of His will to make major changes in people's spiritual lives. That seemed appropriate. That such a small acorn could turn into a mighty oak. (People being raised spiritually by the efforts and plight of a small child.)
From then on I was what I'd call a "non-denominational Christian". I didn't use any church because the inter-faction bickering between protestant and catholic annoyed me intensely. They all worked for the same boss supposedly; they all worshipped Christ as a diving human being who was born of the Virgin Mary and was His only begotten son on the earth. Why the squabbling? So pointless...........
Although you could say I was a protestant, I deliberatley did several things that you might consider catholic practices. I used to cross myself sometimes. Once a guy offered me a lift when I was walking home down a country road; an offer I politely declined because I was only three or four hundred yards from my house. As he drove off I said a quick prayer as I walked, thanking him for his offer and asking God to give him a blessing for his kindness. After I finished I made the sign of the cross in the direction his car had taken. Little things like that were my little protest about how pathetic the strife between different religious denominations were. This period of my life lasted for about 7 years until I was 21, or therabouts. I'd pray every morning and evening, never forgeting even those relatives who irritated me. I'd usually do a prayer that was relavent for that time and place and then finish it with the Lord's Prayer.
At 21 I started to drift away from it. I'm not certain why. I had stuck to it religiously for years. (Pun intended.) At the time I was going through a lot of upheaval because of certain things that were happening in my life. It might be that these put a different slant on my spiritual awareness, but if it was that; then it wasn't a conscious thing. Certainly the experiences I was having have caused a lot of people to achieve spiritual awareness virtually overnight, but I still believe that my first awakening was when I felt the need to help that little girl. When the arab sheik stepped in, (twice) it definatley seemed to me that something miraculous had happened. Of course, little Laura died anyway, but I often think that she might have been one of those high-level souls who incarnate not to have a full life, but to cause other people to have one. By her death I'm sure a lot of other people started praying too.
My upheaval certainly caused me to change my outlook though. Perhaps things were happening in stages? As the new chapter opened at 21, I started meeting people who could understand what I was going through and help to teach me. They'd experienced it to some degree themselves. It had different effects on different people, and I started thinking of myself as spiritual instead of religious. I never turned against being a Christian, I just seemed to have moved to something else. I never consciously made the decision to do it, it just happened.
About a year after "the change" I started to research human rights stuff. That lead me into repression and things like that. I knew that some religious authorities had used faith for their own nefarious reasons, but as I got deeper into it I was horrified by what I was finding out. The sheer depth of it was mind boggling and in a rather roundabout way, it also tied in to the circumstances that had caused so much upheaval in my and my family's life. (Too complicated to explain here.)
So to cut a hugely long story only slightly shorter, I didn't renounce Christianity in favour of something new age that involved wearing dreadlocks and smoking illegal plants. The formal Christian part had already ended for about 12 months, when I started on my current bent of being critical of the establishment.
What you said about fragmentation being something that takes away the ability to control and oppress the masses, actually works in the opposite direction to what you think. You say, "How could the Big 5 (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism) seek to control when they're so busy tearing each other apart?" The big problem for those peeps at the top of the pyramid of control, is everyone being harmoniously together. If there was only one religion, or if all 5 worked in perfect harmony alongside each other, they big guys would be in serious plop. (Ask Biggles what that means. 😉) Not only did the Big 5 originate in the same area of the world as mentioned earlier; they were created by the SAME BUNCH OF PEOPLE! That's the scam I talk about. Humanity has a wonderful capacity for love and harmony. IF there was a sinister group of families trying to control the world, and IF religion was one of their ways of holding it; then splitting humanity into groups and having them war with each other is the idea way of keeping control. Humanity's wonderful capacity for love and spirituality can only work to it's best when the people are united. That's why the religions were created. Seemingly so different and yet all so unbelievably similar, because underneath they are all based on the same history. What we're told of that history is lies, because it's been warped and bent to suit others. So has the timescale.
That is why I believe that terror and seperation between cultures is so prevalent today; because it's being manufactured. People are waking up from spiritual slumbers at a geometric rate and it frightening for the people hidden at the top. I believe that is why we are having so much worldwide trouble these days. Terrorist groups are threatening the UK and the USA, when only a few years ago we were training and funding these same groups. (Or our so called governments were anyway.) We're heading in the next 10 years or so for the biggest damn crunch we've ever had. The crunch that Christians refer to as Armagheddon. The stories of it in the Bible are not literal. They're describing something that prophets were seeing in mist-shrouded visions and was then further warped to try to stop us getting too much of the gist of them.
That's why it doesn't bother me if people are religious in any fashion. Not only do I not have the right to insist that everyone believe what I believe, but it's spiritually wrong too. Besides which, if someone is religious and putting out love vibrations, then it's better than having them not religious and putting out hate ones. That's why I said I like what you do Omega. Not because I was being patronising, but because I genuinely meant it. You didn't have to apologise, because I didn't take offence. I assumed that other people had shown you "attitude" before and that you thought I was too.
As for intelligence, well..........................
People with far higher IQ's than I'll ever have have been religious. One of my biggest heroes is Mohammed Ali, one of the most devout muslims in the western world so I've heard.(Although I know full well that he isn't a perfect one.) I enjoyed his ring performances hugely, but that isn't why I love the guy. I love him because he was the type of human being who gave $100 bills to tramps on the street and bought TV sets for old age pensioners who couldn't afford one. One time he saw a scruffy guy being forcibly ejected from a resteraunt by a doorman. He picked the guy up and asked him what happened. The tramp explained that they would'nt let him eat there, even though he had money to pay for his food. "Follow me!" said the champ and marched through the doors. He leant over the counter and glared eye to eye at the manager. "This gentleman tells me that you won't let him eat dinner here. Well if he's good enough to live on God's green earth, then he's damn sure good enough to eat in your resteraunt!" Facing 6'3'' and 215lbs of angry heavyweight champion, the guy relented. Ali bought the guy his meal, put him up in a hotel for a week and bought him a new suit so he could get himself a job. Just remembering that act now is bringing tears to my eyes, because that's what love for your fellow man is all about. That's why I hold Ali in the high esteem I do; not because he was a good boxer.
omega said:
To answer your question Omega (yes I'm happy to), I was christened in the Church Of England. I believed everything I was told until I was about 6, when critical faculty started developing, and I started to lose interest. However............
In (I think) 1992 when I was 14 years old, there were several appeals on the TV for a young girl called Laura Davies. She needed a multiple organ transplant and the NHS had neither the inclination, money or skilled surgeons to be arsed to save her life. There were huge public fundraising events to generate money for her to go to America to receive the treatment she needed. She was desperatley ill, with tumours all over her kidneys, lungs, heart, liver etc and all of them needed replacing. The public managed to raise about £175,000 for her, but she needed £350,000 for the trip. It was about this time I started praying for her; not just for her money, but for a full recovery as well. It was the first serious piece of religious activity I'd done since I was a pre and infant schooler. (Apart from what different schools had forced me to do as part of their curriculum.) When the money reached £175k it seemed as if the nation was exhausted with all it had done and just could'nt go any further. Appeals were on the TV every night with the news, but all hope seemed lost. At this time something rather unique happened. An anonymous arab sheik stepped in and paid the remaining £175k out of his own pocket. Ta-dah!!!!!
Laura Davies (she was 4 years old, or so) went to America and duly had all of her organs removed and replaced. Things went quietly for about 10 days and then tumours started sprouting all over the new organs like spring onions. It would take yet another operation to stop her dying, for the cost of £250,000. If it came off, this was the last chance she'd have, because her frail body would'nt be able to take any more abuse than that. Five days or so went by and people were talking about it on the TV, the fundraising started again; raising the staggering sum of three and sixpence.
I was on my knees every night and every morning. By now, it had developed into a life thing. She had started me off, but now it was part of my life and while I always mentioned her, I was praying for everything else the average Christian did. The Lord's Prayer seemed to cover most of it, and luckily enough I could remember it from saying it every day for Baphomet knows how many years in school assembly. When all seemed lost yet again, the same arab sheik stepped in for a second time. He put up the entire £250,000 for the second operation and paid for her whole family to fly over to be with her too. The operation duly went ahead and she came out of it fine. The operation hadn't killed her, but it was touch and go to see if her condition would.
Sure enough about two weeks after the second transplant, tumours started growing again on what was by now her third set of organs. About a week after they came back, complications arose from it and she slipped away. At the time I was miserable as hell. This girl had captured the heart of a whole nation and had turned me into a practicing Christian by giving me the need to appeal to higher quarters for her. Unlike some who might have found themselves in my position, I didn't blame God or turn against my new found faith because she'd died. I sensed the paper-thin transience of this "dimension" even then. I wondered about a lot of things and wondered if her purpose in life might have been to raise people who were low and cut off from spirituality, into the realms where they could have raised levels of spiritual awareness. To my thinking then, that seemed to be the way that God might work. To pick a small and vulnerable child and have her be an instrument of His will to make major changes in people's spiritual lives. That seemed appropriate. That such a small acorn could turn into a mighty oak. (People being raised spiritually by the efforts and plight of a small child.)
From then on I was what I'd call a "non-denominational Christian". I didn't use any church because the inter-faction bickering between protestant and catholic annoyed me intensely. They all worked for the same boss supposedly; they all worshipped Christ as a diving human being who was born of the Virgin Mary and was His only begotten son on the earth. Why the squabbling? So pointless...........
Although you could say I was a protestant, I deliberatley did several things that you might consider catholic practices. I used to cross myself sometimes. Once a guy offered me a lift when I was walking home down a country road; an offer I politely declined because I was only three or four hundred yards from my house. As he drove off I said a quick prayer as I walked, thanking him for his offer and asking God to give him a blessing for his kindness. After I finished I made the sign of the cross in the direction his car had taken. Little things like that were my little protest about how pathetic the strife between different religious denominations were. This period of my life lasted for about 7 years until I was 21, or therabouts. I'd pray every morning and evening, never forgeting even those relatives who irritated me. I'd usually do a prayer that was relavent for that time and place and then finish it with the Lord's Prayer.
At 21 I started to drift away from it. I'm not certain why. I had stuck to it religiously for years. (Pun intended.) At the time I was going through a lot of upheaval because of certain things that were happening in my life. It might be that these put a different slant on my spiritual awareness, but if it was that; then it wasn't a conscious thing. Certainly the experiences I was having have caused a lot of people to achieve spiritual awareness virtually overnight, but I still believe that my first awakening was when I felt the need to help that little girl. When the arab sheik stepped in, (twice) it definatley seemed to me that something miraculous had happened. Of course, little Laura died anyway, but I often think that she might have been one of those high-level souls who incarnate not to have a full life, but to cause other people to have one. By her death I'm sure a lot of other people started praying too.
My upheaval certainly caused me to change my outlook though. Perhaps things were happening in stages? As the new chapter opened at 21, I started meeting people who could understand what I was going through and help to teach me. They'd experienced it to some degree themselves. It had different effects on different people, and I started thinking of myself as spiritual instead of religious. I never turned against being a Christian, I just seemed to have moved to something else. I never consciously made the decision to do it, it just happened.
About a year after "the change" I started to research human rights stuff. That lead me into repression and things like that. I knew that some religious authorities had used faith for their own nefarious reasons, but as I got deeper into it I was horrified by what I was finding out. The sheer depth of it was mind boggling and in a rather roundabout way, it also tied in to the circumstances that had caused so much upheaval in my and my family's life. (Too complicated to explain here.)
So to cut a hugely long story only slightly shorter, I didn't renounce Christianity in favour of something new age that involved wearing dreadlocks and smoking illegal plants. The formal Christian part had already ended for about 12 months, when I started on my current bent of being critical of the establishment.
What you said about fragmentation being something that takes away the ability to control and oppress the masses, actually works in the opposite direction to what you think. You say, "How could the Big 5 (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism) seek to control when they're so busy tearing each other apart?" The big problem for those peeps at the top of the pyramid of control, is everyone being harmoniously together. If there was only one religion, or if all 5 worked in perfect harmony alongside each other, they big guys would be in serious plop. (Ask Biggles what that means. 😉) Not only did the Big 5 originate in the same area of the world as mentioned earlier; they were created by the SAME BUNCH OF PEOPLE! That's the scam I talk about. Humanity has a wonderful capacity for love and harmony. IF there was a sinister group of families trying to control the world, and IF religion was one of their ways of holding it; then splitting humanity into groups and having them war with each other is the idea way of keeping control. Humanity's wonderful capacity for love and spirituality can only work to it's best when the people are united. That's why the religions were created. Seemingly so different and yet all so unbelievably similar, because underneath they are all based on the same history. What we're told of that history is lies, because it's been warped and bent to suit others. So has the timescale.
That is why I believe that terror and seperation between cultures is so prevalent today; because it's being manufactured. People are waking up from spiritual slumbers at a geometric rate and it frightening for the people hidden at the top. I believe that is why we are having so much worldwide trouble these days. Terrorist groups are threatening the UK and the USA, when only a few years ago we were training and funding these same groups. (Or our so called governments were anyway.) We're heading in the next 10 years or so for the biggest damn crunch we've ever had. The crunch that Christians refer to as Armagheddon. The stories of it in the Bible are not literal. They're describing something that prophets were seeing in mist-shrouded visions and was then further warped to try to stop us getting too much of the gist of them.
That's why it doesn't bother me if people are religious in any fashion. Not only do I not have the right to insist that everyone believe what I believe, but it's spiritually wrong too. Besides which, if someone is religious and putting out love vibrations, then it's better than having them not religious and putting out hate ones. That's why I said I like what you do Omega. Not because I was being patronising, but because I genuinely meant it. You didn't have to apologise, because I didn't take offence. I assumed that other people had shown you "attitude" before and that you thought I was too.
As for intelligence, well..........................
People with far higher IQ's than I'll ever have have been religious. One of my biggest heroes is Mohammed Ali, one of the most devout muslims in the western world so I've heard.(Although I know full well that he isn't a perfect one.) I enjoyed his ring performances hugely, but that isn't why I love the guy. I love him because he was the type of human being who gave $100 bills to tramps on the street and bought TV sets for old age pensioners who couldn't afford one. One time he saw a scruffy guy being forcibly ejected from a resteraunt by a doorman. He picked the guy up and asked him what happened. The tramp explained that they would'nt let him eat there, even though he had money to pay for his food. "Follow me!" said the champ and marched through the doors. He leant over the counter and glared eye to eye at the manager. "This gentleman tells me that you won't let him eat dinner here. Well if he's good enough to live on God's green earth, then he's damn sure good enough to eat in your resteraunt!" Facing 6'3'' and 215lbs of angry heavyweight champion, the guy relented. Ali bought the guy his meal, put him up in a hotel for a week and bought him a new suit so he could get himself a job. Just remembering that act now is bringing tears to my eyes, because that's what love for your fellow man is all about. That's why I hold Ali in the high esteem I do; not because he was a good boxer.
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
Quoting DVNC:
"When discussin' how a body can be forgiven for ANYTHING if they renounce sin and accept Jesus, I was, as a youth, outraged, 'cause it meant that baby-killin' sociopaths could just say sorry and be saved. That was actually part of what soured me initially on Christianity."
That troubled me, too. But I've since learned that there's a difference between saying "Gee, I'm sorry" (like Clinton did when he was caught with his zipper down, or most Death Row come-to-Jesus conversions) and sincere repentance (like Loyola, or the chap who started AA.) Also, there's a difference between being saved and getting off without consequences. There's no inconsistency in believing that someone ought to ride the lightning for his misdeeds, and hoping that he made his peace with God beforehand.
OTOH, true sociopaths never repent, because they honestly see nothing wrong with what they do.
Here's another thing I've learned: People need a framework of morality to govern their lives. Religion provides one ready-made. A mature individual who has devoted his life to thinking about it can (arguably) derive a workable personal code. Most people, though, lack the mental capacity. And some who don't, lack the life experience that's required for such an effort. There's nothing scarier than a bright young guy who thinks he knows it all.
Strelnikov
"When discussin' how a body can be forgiven for ANYTHING if they renounce sin and accept Jesus, I was, as a youth, outraged, 'cause it meant that baby-killin' sociopaths could just say sorry and be saved. That was actually part of what soured me initially on Christianity."
That troubled me, too. But I've since learned that there's a difference between saying "Gee, I'm sorry" (like Clinton did when he was caught with his zipper down, or most Death Row come-to-Jesus conversions) and sincere repentance (like Loyola, or the chap who started AA.) Also, there's a difference between being saved and getting off without consequences. There's no inconsistency in believing that someone ought to ride the lightning for his misdeeds, and hoping that he made his peace with God beforehand.
OTOH, true sociopaths never repent, because they honestly see nothing wrong with what they do.
Here's another thing I've learned: People need a framework of morality to govern their lives. Religion provides one ready-made. A mature individual who has devoted his life to thinking about it can (arguably) derive a workable personal code. Most people, though, lack the mental capacity. And some who don't, lack the life experience that's required for such an effort. There's nothing scarier than a bright young guy who thinks he knows it all.
Strelnikov
Strelnikov said:
Damn ears are burning again............ 😛
I agree with quite a lot of what you said there Strel. Truly repenting for an act or series of acts doesn't just mean saying sorry. If you truly repent of and act (say you robbed someone's home for instance) then true repentance would be to either return the goods and apologise, or pay for new ones for the people you stole them from. You might even take things further and do things in your spare time to improve the community. Volunteer work or the like. Only by working hard to erase the bad deeds from life can you truly say that you've turned away from them.
BigJim said:
I think it even goes beyond this. True repentance says I will take the consequences of my actions. Not just reparations but also jail time if that is given. Sometimes we are suspicious of death row conversions because we think that the person is just trying to get out of being executed. But what about the death row inmate who says they have experienced conversion but are absolutly willing to be executed as the just punishment for their crime?
omega said:
Oh I definatley agree with that. I meant it as well, but didn't mention it because I thought it was obvious. Certainly jail time must be considered part of it too.
omega said:
What about them? If they want to die, that's up to them. But what's the question you're asking?
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
I think the question is just a rhetorical device. What the Padre is saying (again) is that repentance involves taking responsibility for one's actions. A true death-row convert probably won't want to die, but will see execution as a just penalty for his actions, and won't fear death overmuch because of the promise of salvation his religion gives him.
Strelnikov
Strelnikov
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
OT ALERT! Oh hell, this thread rambles so much anyway, maybe this actually IS on topic. Anyway...
Jim, what happened to your Union Jack sig? It's one of the better ones.
Strelnikov
Jim, what happened to your Union Jack sig? It's one of the better ones.
Strelnikov
Sorry t'hear you're gettin' barbs about such, Jim.
Personally, though, I don't even show .sigs on most of my computers now, 'cause it slows download. Same with the monster graphics people were showin' in their posts. It's reading time I lose with those, and I wanna dig what folks are sayin'.
As for the prison religious conversions, so long as a body does their time, it's double-bonus if they get a clue in the process, y'know?
Personally, though, I don't even show .sigs on most of my computers now, 'cause it slows download. Same with the monster graphics people were showin' in their posts. It's reading time I lose with those, and I wanna dig what folks are sayin'.
As for the prison religious conversions, so long as a body does their time, it's double-bonus if they get a clue in the process, y'know?
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
BUMP!
A large church in a major city is packed one morning, when two men walk in from the back, wearing all black, hoods, combat boots and carrying Uzis.
One of them yells, "Anyone who won't take a bullet for Jesus better leave right now!"
People scream and run for the exits, the emergency exits, the stained glass windows, even the service door through the kitchen in the basement. In thirty seconds, all that are left are the preacher with a white-knuckle grip on his podium, four of the choir, and a dozen people huddled in the front pew, holding hands and praying.
The gunmen walk up, sit down next to this group, take off their masks and the second one says, "Alright, Reverend, we got rid of the hypocrites. Let's hear your sermon."
Strelnikov
A large church in a major city is packed one morning, when two men walk in from the back, wearing all black, hoods, combat boots and carrying Uzis.
One of them yells, "Anyone who won't take a bullet for Jesus better leave right now!"
People scream and run for the exits, the emergency exits, the stained glass windows, even the service door through the kitchen in the basement. In thirty seconds, all that are left are the preacher with a white-knuckle grip on his podium, four of the choir, and a dozen people huddled in the front pew, holding hands and praying.
The gunmen walk up, sit down next to this group, take off their masks and the second one says, "Alright, Reverend, we got rid of the hypocrites. Let's hear your sermon."
Strelnikov
