Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 107
  1. #61  
    Because God demands faith, not ambivalence. The attitude you hold towards religion clearly shows you dont have real faith in absolute higher powers. You are just in it for the moral guide. Stop deluding yourself.

    Surur
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm sure the historical JC would likewise find a significant number smugly confident in their own righteousness.
    I shouldn't delve into this here with you shopharim, but I had a semi-lengthy conversation with a chinese friend today during which I proposed the continuity of Confusicianism evolving into chinese communism -- with Mao as both Emperor and Buddha.

    (like confusianism, communism established a rigid dogma of external behavior and speech that was intended to change people's internal attitudes and thoughts -- all for the purpose of being guided and controlled by the emperor or the great helmsman Mao).

    We were talking about the peculiarities of the chinese religious ferment -- and the reasons for why the communists so fear the rise of organized groups like the Falun Gung. So your reply has caught me in a slightly contemplative (not contemptuous) moment of thought about religion.

    We wandered into discussing jesus as an historical figure who may well have existed -- but the deified immortal one is surely a spiritual myth.

    Jesus the jew, the sect leader, the rabbi who was not quite the revolutionary of some of his peers -- this jesus did not set out to propose a new religion -- did not set out to reject his Judaic faith.

    his followers, and his followers followers embellished and mythologized his story, evangelized and recruited amongst the heathen that the jews had traditionally ignored, and gradually absorbed the myths, legends, and pagan tradition of those absorbed "faiths".

    Eventually this begot christianity -- and with it its associated myths of resurrection, rebirth, and immortality -- and the figure of a son of god risen from the dead, able and wanting to intercede with his father for the benefit of man...

    If you're inclined, briefly react and demolish my interpretations (non-biblically, with an historic fact based answer, I hope)
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/08/2006 at 02:26 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I shouldn't delve into this here with you shopharim, but I had a semi-lengthy conversation with a chinese friend today during which I proposed the continuity of Confusicianism evolving into chinese communism -- with Mao as both Emperor and Buddha.

    (like confusianism, communism established a rigid dogma of external behavior and speech that was intended to change people's internal attitudes and thoughts -- all for the purpose of being guided and controlled by the emperor or the great helmsman Mao).

    We were talking about the peculiarities of the chinese religious ferment -- and the reasons for why the communists so fear the rise of organized groups like the Falun Gung. So your reply has caught me in a slightly contemplative (not contemptuous) moment of thought about religion.

    We wandered into discussing jesus as an historical figure who may well have existed -- but the deified immortal one is surely a spiritual myth.

    Jesus the jew, the sect leader, the rabbi who was not quite the revolutionary of some of his peers -- this jesus did not set out to propose a new religion -- did not set out to reject his Judaic faith.

    his followers, and his followers followers embellished and mythologized his story, evangelized and recruited amongst the heathen that the jews had traditionally ignored, and gradually absorbed the myths, legends, and pagan tradition of those absorbed "faiths".

    Eventually this begot christianity -- and with it its associated myths of resurrection, rebirth, and immortality -- and the figure of a son of god risen from the dead, able and wanting to intercede with his father for the benefit of man...

    If you're inclined, briefly react and demolish my interpretations (non-biblically, with an historic fact based answer, I hope)
    Of course, it should be noted on the outset that you're asking shopharim to do something you haven't: that being using facts. You yourself have only offered opinion. In a real debate, since you made the claim the onus would be on you to defend it.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Firstly, I never claimed that I was attempting to convey the moral of this story, I was attempting to illustrate my point, but as you often do, you are side tracking and misdirecting.

    But fine, what is the moral of the story hoovs?

    The moral of the story is that God really does not hate babies after all?

    Isn't the moral of the story that we should trust and obey God no matter how crazy it sounds to us?
    Actually, I used the term 'moral' to mean that you have to know the whole story and what it was meant to convey. It doesn't really matter if you were trying to convey the moral or not, you were using the story in an incorrect analogy. Let start at the beginning. You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The point I was making is that, when you adopt a system of beliefs that doesn't have a basis in your observations, that doesn't have a basis in fact, which one of use will decide which beliefs are righteous and which ones are crazy?

    What if it were your belief that your god wanted you to kill your children for example?
    Now, by the latter statement, you obviously intended to draw the parallel to Abraham--which you stated more directly later on. But you first said "when you adopt the system of beliefs that doesn't have a basis in observation". Now, anyone who knows the story of Abraham will tell you that he had a long history of discussions with God that had very real, tangeable results. God told him He would destroy Sodom and He did. God told Abraham he would have a son by a baron old womand and he did. So the faith of Abraham clearly had a basis in fact.

    Second, getting past the fact that Abraham's actions on Mount Moriah didn't happen in a vacuum, its still not fair to use the story as an analogy because God didn't want Abraham to kill Isaac and Abraham didn't kill Isaac. So the analogy is only good to a point but it fails in the end.

    Now, you can certainly use the story of a person who kills his child because he thought God wanted him to as an example of a lunatic who made extremely bad choices on the basis religious beliefs. These stories are out there and they have happened. But in the absence of religion that lunatic would still have been crazy and probably would still have killed his child--except instead of God it would have been aliens or imaginary people, etc. These are examples you can draw from. Not the story of Abraham.

    Having said all this, what should I do if I believe God asked me to kill my child? Well, unless I heard God tell me He would destroy a city and then witnessed it happen and unless I was told by God that I would have a child by my 90+ year old baron wife and then watched it happen, or something else equally fantastic I guess I would have to check myself into a hospital.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    If you view the M.A.P.S. (Manuscripts, Archaeology, Predictions, Statistical probability of those predictions uniquely coming to fruition in the life of one historical figure) you will find that the biblical text is rooted in fact, and worthy of consideration as a basis for how to live.
    While there may be some limited corroboration for events in the bible, nothing of religious importance is supported by facts. There may be some independent sources pointing to the exitence of Jesus, but nothing supporting the view that he was the son of god, that he came back from the dead, that Mary was a virgin, etc.

    As to your trust in "predictions uniquely coming to fruition in the life of one historical figure": do you consider Jews too stupid and ignorant to notice the "fact" of Jesus being the Messiah? Believe it or not, but based on the "facts" and prophecies of the Old Testament, they have come to the conclusion that Jesus undoubtedly was NOT the Messiah... so there you have your facts.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #66  
    If you have proof, you dont need faith, and its no longer religion, its science.

    Surur
  7. #67  
    Originally Posted By: hoovs at Today 01:57 AM

    "God told Abraham he would have a son by a baron old womand and he did. So the faith of Abraham clearly had a basis in fact."


    LOL. Basing your "facts" on the existence of god(s) alone is a curious way to support your argument. The barren 90 yr old wife thing is icing on the cake.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    If you have proof, you dont need faith, and its no longer religion, its science.

    Surur
    Exactly.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Interesting point but who exactly will metre out which set of personal beliefs with no basis in fact is "righteous living", and which should put one in a psychiatric ward?

    You? George W? Sean Hannity?
    I've finally figured it out. The "74" in your screen name is the birth year for your parents. Therefore, at best, you are 12-13 years old, and like all other juveniles, you'll disagree with anything for the fun of it. It's now 8:53 EDT, but if I told you it is daylight, you'd vociferously argue it is dark...

    Maybe it's time for Mommy & Daddy to unplug you computer and remove it from your bedroom before you end up in the psych ward...
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    We wandered into discussing jesus as an historical figure who may well have existed -- but the deified immortal one is surely a spiritual myth.

    Jesus the jew, the sect leader, the rabbi who was not quite the revolutionary of some of his peers -- this jesus did not set out to propose a new religion -- did not set out to reject his Judaic faith.

    his followers, and his followers followers embellished and mythologized his story, evangelized and recruited amongst the heathen that the jews had traditionally ignored, and gradually absorbed the myths, legends, and pagan tradition of those absorbed "faiths".
    I read a lot about Jesus from an Historical standpoint Barye, and he wouldn't have used the term new religion, and certainly wouldn't have rejected his Judaic faith, but he definitely campaigned for radical egalitarian reform.

    His Kingdom movement was a religo political revolution with Jesus at the Center.

    But you're right, none of the authors of the New Testament works, even the gospels had even met Jesus, In fact most of the earliest works of the new testament were written 300 years or so after Jesus died.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/08/2006 at 09:11 AM.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As to your trust in "predictions uniquely coming to fruition in the life of one historical figure": do you consider Jews too stupid and ignorant to notice the "fact" of Jesus being the Messiah? Believe it or not, but based on the "facts" and prophecies of the Old Testament, they have come to the conclusion that Jesus undoubtedly was NOT the Messiah... so there you have your facts.
    wow, good point
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Because God demands faith, not ambivalence. The attitude you hold towards religion clearly shows you dont have real faith in absolute higher powers. You are just in it for the moral guide. Stop deluding yourself.
    Which was, I thought, the moral of the story of Abraham and Isaic.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    oh for pete's sake!!! so are you saying that the crazy woman in the video, as insane as she is, is in the right simply because she she is following some bizarre interpretation of the her bible? her religion gives her the excuse to behave the way she does? is that your moral here?

    so even if someone wakes up one day realizing that their leaders are insane, you think they must continue to blindly follow the lunacy because they were indocrinated as members under them?!!
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    Quite the opposite! Me thinks the omnipotent Blaze is inferring that all religion is bunk.
    The crazy woman in the video has adopted an alternate belief system that requires no basis in fact. It happens to be one that triggers some of our most closely held cultural taboos.

    I was saying, isn't that exactly what Jesus was killed for?
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/08/2006 at 09:23 AM.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    Originally Posted By: hoovs at Today 01:57 AM

    "God told Abraham he would have a son by a baron old womand and he did. So the faith of Abraham clearly had a basis in fact."


    LOL. Basing your "facts" on the existence of god(s) alone is a curious way to support your argument. The barren 90 yr old wife thing is icing on the cake.
    Not sure what you mean but there was a presupposition in my post, for the sake of argument, that the story of Abraham is true.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    But you're right, none of the authors of the New Testament works, even the gospels had even met Jesus, In fact most of the earliest works of the new testament were written 300 years or so after Jesus died.
    According to whom on the basis of what?
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    But you're right, none of the authors of the New Testament works, even the gospels had even met Jesus, In fact most of the earliest works of the new testament were written 300 years or so after Jesus died.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    According to whom on the basis of what?
    What? It's called history. The Gospel of Matthew was written around 80 AD, Luke around 90AD, Mark & John after that. Any views of your own hoovs? Or are you just here to side track every debate and demand other to give you history lessons, and assume they are lying until they do?
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    What? It's called history. The Gospel of Matthew was written around 80 AD, Luke around 90AD, Mark & John after that. Any views of your own hoovs? Or are you just here to side track every debate and demand other to give you history lessons, and assume they are lying until they do?
    Forgive me for wanting to give you the opportunity to base your argument of facts. The fact is that most conservative and a large and growing number of liberal theologians put the date of completion of the entire NT by the end of the first Century AD. Some liberal theologians (see John Robinson) date it as early as 70 AD. There are external quotations and references to most of the NT by the late first and mid second Centuries AD (see Clement's letter to Corinth dated at about 95 AD, Polycarp's letter to Philippi dated about 120 AD and Justin Martyr's Apologies).
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    ...Jesus the jew, the sect leader, the rabbi who was not quite the revolutionary of some of his peers -- this jesus did not set out to propose a new religion -- did not set out to reject his Judaic faith.
    On this we agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE

    his followers, and his followers followers embellished and mythologized his story, evangelized and recruited amongst the heathen that the jews had traditionally ignored, and gradually absorbed the myths, legends, and pagan tradition of those absorbed "faiths".
    His followers continued the work He began. They were so intent on doing so, they were called "Christians" (by context it appears that the term was used in an insulting manner). In successive generations we did see the movement begin to adopt the myths, legends, and traditions of other cultures and religions. Many of those adopted practices and thoughts continue to abound.

    What we have seen is the difference between religion (a system of practices) and relationship (the manner in which God interacts with man)
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE

    Eventually this begot christianity -- and with it its associated myths of resurrection, rebirth, and immortality -- and the figure of a son of god risen from the dead, able and wanting to intercede with his father for the benefit of man...

    If you're inclined, briefly react and demolish my interpretations (non-biblically, with an historic fact based answer, I hope)
    You have established a difference where there is no distinction. We have the manuscripts that comprise the biblical text. There authencity has been verified, and there content has been corroborated through archaeology. As it relates to the claims of Jesus' followers, the onus is on you to demonstrated the error you allege in their account.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    While there may be some limited corroboration for events in the bible, nothing of religious importance is supported by facts. There may be some independent sources pointing to the exitence of Jesus, but nothing supporting the view that he was the son of god, that he came back from the dead, that Mary was a virgin, etc.
    Follow the chain:
    1. The manuscripts are authentic enabling verification of the translation of those manuscripts.
    2. The content of the manuscripts are corroborated in archaeology (stay tuned for the religious importance of that)
    3. Based on this we can confirm the geographic and generational diversity of the text
    4. On that basis do we grant significance to the cohesiveness of the varied writings, especially as they relate vividly accurate predictive text concerning Jesus (without the verification of the authencity of the manscripts, one could simply claim that the writings were made after the fact and presented as "prophecy")
    5. In short, we have text coming from people who could not have interacted with each other, that synched together and their focal point and dissecting point was theone historical figure Jesus.
    6. As such, we ascribe the the text is divine in origin rather than merely the musings of men
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As to your trust in "predictions uniquely coming to fruition in the life of one historical figure": do you consider Jews too stupid and ignorant to notice the "fact" of Jesus being the Messiah? Believe it or not, but based on the "facts" and prophecies of the Old Testament, they have come to the conclusion that Jesus undoubtedly was NOT the Messiah... so there you have your facts.
    Believe it or not, for many years it was only the jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. The message was not taken to non-jews initially. Further, there There are those who hold the view that the Jewish leaders rejection of Jesus was more political than analytical. Their expectation of the Messiah was that of a warrior/deliverer (incidentally, the manner in which we expect the Messiah's next appearance at which time they will recognize Him as we do).
    Last edited by shopharim; 05/08/2006 at 05:19 PM.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    If you have proof, you dont need faith, and its no longer religion, its science.

    Surur
    Biblical "faith" is synonymous with proof, in the same way that the claim ticket demonstrates that the item in the possession of one is yet under the ownership of another, in this case the ticket holder. The faith itself is not the proof. Rather, because one has proof, s/he is confident in that which has been promised, and awaits "in faith" its materialization.

    your statement would be more accurate to say: if you don't have proof, you can't have faith, therefore it must be religion (a man-made set of principles and practices aimed at relating to god).
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions