Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[cancat]

Actually, Pauls letters were written within a couple of years of his conversion, which was no more than a few years after the crucifixion

So he wrote his letters as a toddler?

The founder of Christianity appeared to suffer a psychotic episode in his mid life. Mind you he sounded like a nutter before that.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

New improved christmas mythology.

This is epic.

 

[Bennett.]

I'll bet you have perfected that smug, all-knowing christian smile. Your second-last paragraph is proof of nothing, other than the contortions you are prepared to endure so you don't have to examine your precious, and irrelevant, beliefs.

Why the personal attacks?
Also contortions I have to endure so I don't have to examine? How do you think I happened upon my understandings?

 

[Bennett.]

So he wrote his letters as a toddler?

The founder of Christianity appeared to suffer a psychotic episode in his mid life. Mind you he sounded like a nutter before that.

where are you pulling this one from?

 

[Bennett.]

I was referring to the council of nicea...

I know you were, but you were also making very broad, and inaccurate, statements.

 

[holy diver]

This is epic.

There is too much awesomeness in that scene, but the sealer for me is Bill & Ted.

 

[Bennett.]

There is too much awesomeness in that scene, but the sealer for me is Bill & Ted.

Wyld Stallyns Rule!

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

“Science is the poetry of reality”

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

 

[Monniehawk]

Actually, Pauls letters were written within a couple of years of his conversion, which was no more than a few years after the crucifixion. I wish that people
who appear to espouse knowledge about biblical history and dating actually did some more research. The oldest fragment of scripture we have at the moment
is from John and is no older that 120AD. This fragment was found in Egypt. Yup, within these mysterious hundreds of years of christian scriptures being doctored, somehow the scriptures had already made their way down to Egypt. The implications of this is that the entire collection of NT scriptures that we have were all written and completed in the first century. In fact, the first gospel written by Mark, has been dated to about no more than 15-20 years after the crucifixion. As far as the apocryphal books, they went against the teaching, character and person of Jesus written in the other gospels etc. I.e, they were not right and therefore rejected as being man-made.
Please know what you are talking about friends.

OOH!
Such presumption!
Said with such conviction, a smidgeon of arrogance and unbridled certainty, too! Well done!

Unfortunately, the attitude that rears up from that post is one that is commonly and unflatteringly ascribed to many xians: dogmatic insistence that you are right and no room for movement. I'd rather you didn't reinforce those stereotypes.
My sources' information differs even from each other - as well as from yours - as does my Concordance and Bible, no doubt. Certainly our interpretations would be poles apart. We start from different paradigms.
So, let's just assume that the jury is still out on actual dates, eh?

But, back to the issue as discussed. Paul of Tarsus is believed to have been born a scant few years after JC. His epistles were pontifical in nature although there remains doubt about whether he authored all of them. Many of the documents found are actually transcriptions, rather than writings in the original hand, and were written after the events they portray. Just when, and by whom, is an esoteric debate such as the one we are having. Ultimately, it is probably of little real value.
Your take on the Apochrypha is typical of a number of evangelical churches. You have made that judgement based on that attitude, I would guess. I am far more open minded about it. I just don't know - or even care, really.
The final selection of the books for the NT, it would seem, was an arbitrary one that was shrouded in dogmatism, legalistic argument, individual perception, political pressure and plain old human bigotry. In short, it was a decision by a committee.
The argument that the Apocrypha 'went against the teaching of Jesus' is rather subjective. They went against the interpretation that was formed by the majority of that committee. In essence, that decision could be understood as forming the basic dogma of xianity; creating the basis of the catholic church (in its literal sense) and destroying the dynamism of the early xian movement. Of course, anything that didn't align with their decision was deemed to be dubious or spurious in nature. Such is the essence of the hubris of man.

Then, this is simply more opinion.
Paul, Barnabas and Peter all had vastly different opinions. Antioch was the scene of much dissent for Paul with his mates. But, dare to declare which of them were wrong?
It comes down to what you want to think, I guess.

 

[skilts]

“Science is the poetry of reality”

Very strange people. They seemingly think deeply about their existence, yet they consign the irrational aspects of humans to the non-existent basket. Rationality is all. Merely another example of the human tendency to impose their will on what is 'reality'. So sad that their only reason for being is not their own lives as such. It appears their cosmological stance is driven solely by reactionary forces - i.e. to religion's claims. Have they no thoughts which are not thus engendered? If this video be an Intro to Humanism, as it purports, it would appear not. As for the arrogant claims which place humans at the epicentre of the universe, and elevates them to sole arbiters, that provides a good laugh.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

skilts is back and he wants our "chonsens"

 

[Bennett.]

OOH!
Such presumption!
Said with such conviction, a smidgeon of arrogance and unbridled certainty, too! Well done!

Unfortunately, the attitude that rears up from that post is one that is commonly and unflatteringly ascribed to many xians: dogmatic insistence that you are right and no room for movement. I'd rather you didn't reinforce those stereotypes.
My sources' information differs even from each other - as well as from yours - as does my Concordance and Bible, no doubt. Certainly our interpretations would be poles apart. We start from different paradigms.
So, let's just assume that the jury is still out on actual dates, eh?

But, back to the issue as discussed. Paul of Tarsus is believed to have been born a scant few years after JC. His epistles were pontifical in nature although there remains doubt about whether he authored all of them. Many of the documents found are actually transcriptions, rather than writings in the original hand, and were written after the events they portray. Just when, and by whom, is an esoteric debate such as the one we are having. Ultimately, it is probably of little real value.
Your take on the Apochrypha is typical of a number of evangelical churches. You have made that judgement based on that attitude, I would guess. I am far more open minded about it. I just don't know - or even care, really.
The final selection of the books for the NT, it would seem, was an arbitrary one that was shrouded in dogmatism, legalistic argument, individual perception, political pressure and plain old human bigotry. In short, it was a decision by a committee.
The argument that the Apocrypha 'went against the teaching of Jesus' is rather subjective. They went against the interpretation that was formed by the majority of that committee. In essence, that decision could be understood as forming the basic dogma of xianity; creating the basis of the catholic church (in its literal sense) and destroying the dynamism of the early xian movement. Of course, anything that didn't align with their decision was deemed to be dubious or spurious in nature. Such is the essence of the hubris of man.

Then, this is simply more opinion.
Paul, Barnabas and Peter all had vastly different opinions. Antioch was the scene of much dissent for Paul with his mates. But, dare to declare which of them were wrong?
It comes down to what you want to think, I guess.

I do apologise if I appeared arrogant, as it is not who I am.
I do believe though, that the Acts gives a pretty good account of dating for Paul and his involvement with the apostles etc. In fact, Paul kind of falls
of the page so to speak at around AD62-ish. Datewise then, it is able to be relatively accurately traced. As far as the apocryphal writings are concerned,
there is some good material in there for sure, and some great historical material, but it is inconsistent with the themes, stylistic approaches, etc of the accepted biblical texts. I apologise as well, as I was thinking of the gospel of Thomas, and confused myself with the apocryphal writings - hey, I'm human! Thomas in itself is entirely inconsistent with Christ and that is why it was rejected. Yes, people chose which books to include, but please understand they weren't just normal average joe's like us, but scholars and academics who had devoted themselves to the study. I agree with the hubris though, and sadly I personally believe that the Catholic church has done some amazing good, but some incredibly damaging things to people too, and I feel sorry for people who have been subjected to its vile abuses. I actually don't consider it to be a 'christian' church per se, but a very good organisation that concerns itself with power and prestige and the BUSINESS of religion. Unfortunately there are some wonderful religious people in the church and I can't begin to imagine how pulled apart some people must feel. I get sick seeing humility preached from a golden throne, believe me.

 

[Pie eyed]

New improved christmas mythology.

NO SMURFS OR MOSHI MONSTERS.......Currency Fail.

 

[Pie eyed]

“Science is the poetry of reality”

Hard_to_Beat is a handsome and influential guy, who's friends love, admire and respect.
Women are drawn to him, men admire his understated machismo and the rest merely gaze on in awe and wonder.

Sorry...that was a direct response to your sig....no homo.

Nice reality coming for you....

 

[tb_fanboy]

I do apologise if I appeared arrogant, as it is not who I am.
I do believe though, that the Acts gives a pretty good account of dating for Paul and his involvement with the apostles etc. In fact, Paul kind of falls
of the page so to speak at around AD62-ish. Datewise then, it is able to be relatively accurately traced. As far as the apocryphal writings are concerned,
there is some good material in there for sure, and some great historical material, but it is inconsistent with the themes, stylistic approaches, etc of the accepted biblical texts. I apologise as well, as I was thinking of the gospel of Thomas, and confused myself with the apocryphal writings - hey, I'm human! Thomas in itself is entirely inconsistent with Christ and that is why it was rejected. Yes, people chose which books to include, but please understand they weren't just normal average joe's like us, but scholars and academics who had devoted themselves to the study. I agree with the hubris though, and sadly I personally believe that the Catholic church has done some amazing good, but some incredibly damaging things to people too, and I feel sorry for people who have been subjected to its vile abuses. I actually don't consider it to be a 'christian' church per se, but a very good organisation that concerns itself with power and prestige and the BUSINESS of religion. Unfortunately there are some wonderful religious people in the church and I can't begin to imagine how pulled apart some people must feel. I get sick seeing humility preached from a golden throne, believe me.

You know, i've always felt similar regarding the Catholic church and I've never know how to describe it. You just described it perfectly for me- business of religion. The devout Catholics like Philip Rivers are good people and I guess now Catholics are starting to be judged on the actions of some heirachy.

 

[holy diver]

NO SMURFS OR MOSHI MONSTERS.......Currency Fail.

Commander Riker, Councillor Troy, Wyld Stallyns, 3 Darth Vaders, Batman and a T-Rex amongst anime manga characters.

You are hard to impress....

 

[Pie eyed]

I have high standards, I'm afraid.
Sometimes it's a curse.

 

[Monniehawk]

You know, i've always felt similar regarding the Catholic church and I've never know how to describe it. You just described it perfectly for me- business of religion. The devout Catholics like Philip Rivers are good people and I guess now Catholics are starting to be judged on the actions of some heirachy.

Hmmm. I can understand your perception, although we have different imperatives. I suspect your assessment is based on a religion that views the RC church as doctrinally different and therefore quite wrong.
Whatever xian pole you run your religious flag up, I also see as being 'wrong' - in the sense of misguided, not aberrant.
The business of religion is only one aspect of ALL churches. Some newer evangelicals appear to be driven by wealth and it is reflected in their activities. They are marketing a product and pay service to Mammon. They justify it in their minds through their texts.
I admire the true humanitarian work done by many of the mainstream churches (Anglican, RC, etc) and the seemingly continually selfless Salvos.
Saving people rather than collecting souls (read 'minds') in order to buy gods' favours into heaven is the ultimate test, methinks.
Saving souls is the ultimate vanity.

 

[Bennett.]

Hmmm. I can understand your perception, although we have different imperatives. I suspect your assessment is based on a religion that views the RC church as doctrinally different and therefore quite wrong.
Whatever xian pole you run your religious flag up, I also see as being 'wrong' - in the sense of misguided, not aberrant.
The business of religion is only one aspect of ALL churches. Some newer evangelicals appear to be driven by wealth and it is reflected in their activities. They are marketing a product and pay service to Mammon. They justify it in their minds through their texts.
I admire the true humanitarian work done by many of the mainstream churches (Anglican, RC, etc) and the seemingly continually selfless Salvos.
Saving people rather than collecting souls (read 'minds') in order to buy gods' favours into heaven is the ultimate test, methinks.
Saving souls is the ultimate vanity.

In one way you're absolutely right. Although there is nothing we can do to even earn, let alone buy, God's favour, some churches
use numbers of salvations as a prestige. That is horrible and does a disservice to God. Sadly so do a lot of churches, but the RC
religious machine does it better than most.

 

[holy diver]

 

[holy diver]

 

[tb_fanboy]

Hmmm. I can understand your perception, although we have different imperatives. I suspect your assessment is based on a religion that views the RC church as doctrinally different and therefore quite wrong.
Whatever xian pole you run your religious flag up, I also see as being 'wrong' - in the sense of misguided, not aberrant.
The business of religion is only one aspect of ALL churches. Some newer evangelicals appear to be driven by wealth and it is reflected in their activities. They are marketing a product and pay service to Mammon. They justify it in their minds through their texts.
I admire the true humanitarian work done by many of the mainstream churches (Anglican, RC, etc) and the seemingly continually selfless Salvos.
Saving people rather than collecting souls (read 'minds') in order to buy gods' favours into heaven is the ultimate test, methinks.
Saving souls is the ultimate vanity.

I don't really see one type of Christianity right, as long as they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ I consider that person saved. You could almost say I'm non denominational although I go to a Baptist church as I see them as the most normal denom in the way that they follow the bible and gospels and don't add on anything (like LDS or JW). I guess this is how I see the RC church, as more of a business organisation than church but as I said before that's not fair on the practising Catholics. The religious practices I really adhere to are the commandments and laws of God of the bible, not any extra biblical practices specific to certain denominations. I do believe though that if you chose to be baptised, it should be when you make your own choice- but I don't see baptism as a necessity to being saved. I wonder how many people think they're going to heaven solely for the fact they were baptised/christened as a baby?

 

[holy diver]

I don't really see one type of Christianity right, as long as they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ I consider that person saved. You could almost say I'm non denominational although I go to a Baptist church as I see them as the most normal denom in the way that they follow the bible and gospels and don't add on anything (like LDS or JW). I guess this is how I see the RC church, as more of a business organisation than church but as I said before that's not fair on the practising Catholics. The religious practices I really adhere to are the commandments and laws of God of the bible, not any extra biblical practices specific to certain denominations. I do believe though that if you chose to be baptised, it should be when you make your own choice- but I don't see baptism as a necessity to being saved. I wonder how many people think they're going to heaven solely for the fact they were baptised/christened as a baby?

I'm genuinely curious...

How's the slave business these days? Are the prices still good for the 21st century?
Do you take any shit from kids. I bet you don't.
How do you manage in the modern world without blending fabrics? Do tell?

 

[tb_fanboy]

I'm genuinely curious...

How's the slave business these days? Are the prices still good for the 21st century?
Do you take any shit from kids. I bet you don't.
How do you manage in the modern world without blending fabrics? Do tell?

The ones that are applicable and acceptable in today's times obviously like the ten commandments. was it even worth posting dude?