Koyaanisqatsi

You want to get into it? All right, my friend (and good on ya' )

Which I then supplied. The overview of the evidence in support of my contention:

1. Myths are fictional and therefore deliberately concocted.
2. Hellenism was dominant in the region.
3. Paul's main concern when speaking to the Greeks is this "stumbling block."
4. Paul, at least, admits that he would do anything necessary to fool the people he is proselytizing to into listening to his "word" (a deliberately concocted myth). To the Jew, he will become like a Jew; to the criminals he will become like a criminal (perhaps even a criminal, who knows?), so as to win those not having the law.
5. The concept of killing both body and[//b] soul (the word "Hades" is used in Revalations, mind you)--aka, the "second death"--can not be found [b]anywhere in the Old Testament, from which everything is supposed to flow through and be reallized by Jesus; nor, for that matter, is there any like concept of "hell" found in Jewish dogma or beliefs.

Beside the fact that I provide three of my sources: The works of Burton Mack; Elaine Pagels; and the Bible, what sources have you supplied in support of your wild declaration; such as "most christians" are not aware of the punishments for disbelief or the parables I quoted.

Why am I the only one on this pointless fishing expedition? I have admitted to you that one of the books I brought up was probably not the one that covered the specifics of discussing Hellenistic concepts of Hades and how their belief was that this was the place the dead went to.

This does not require a PhD in ancient Greek mythology to confirm. Here it is from Webster's: "Hades: the underground abode of the dead in Greek mythology."

Here's from Encylopedia.com: "The world of the dead, ruled by Pluto and Persephone, located either underground or in the far west beyond the inhabited regions ... The judges of the dead--Minos, Aeacus, and Rhadaman--thus assigned to each soul its appropriate abode. The virtuous and the heroic were rewarded in the Elysian fields ; wrongdoers were sent to Tartarus ; and most wandered as dull shadows among fields of asphodel."

Setting aside everything else but your own intelligence, what do you think Jesus was referring to when he told his followers to fear the one who could destroy both body and soul, in hell, the "second death," if it was not a "one-up-ness" on the concept of Hades?

Don't rely on anyone else including me to influence your thinking; just reflect on what Paul admitted regarding his talks with Greek believers and then explain how a largely Jewish sect would come up with a place that is not found in the belief structure of Judaism in any like manner, and state repeatedly that one shouldn't fear anyone who could just kill you, but you should fear the One who can both kill you and your soul in hell, the "second death."

Since Greeks (and Romans) were the only ones who had Hades as a concept of their theology, you tell me what the point of delineating and expanding upon a largely Grecco/Roman precept was for a Grecco/Roman-Hellenized-Jewish audience?

Do you find any mention of the "second death" in the Old Testament, let alone any belief in a "Hell" in Judaism? No, you do not.

So you tell me. Where did this "second death" come from if not directly in response to a Hellenistic influence on the mytholgy? How's that?

As I admitted before, I can't find the book that details the exact same deconstruction; but, again, you don't need a PhD in theology to do it yourself.

Regardless, as I mentioned before, just grant the fact that I have no direct quote to say the same things I've detailed; how does this have anything to do with the question of whether or not such fear based concepts are inherent in the scriptures?

That's why I quoted the Bible. What manner of evidence are you requesting? That Jesus said, "Koyaanisqatsi is right!"?

That the NT you are worshipping comes from the Greek and that Paul was preaching to Thesollonians, for example, is well established.

As both my quotes and yours that follow showed, Paul repeatedly acknowledges that there is an understanding of who his audience is and what problems he will encounter with their beliefs and further, what lengths he will go to in order to communicate to that audience; including the understanding that the Greeks would not accept a resurrection story easily, confirming what Mack had stated.

But since this argument has nothing to do with whether or not there are fear based elements inherent in the dogma, I continue to fail to see why you keep raising it.

Are you attempting to indict me, personally, in some manner, by painting me as someone who makes claims without evidentiary support, all because I did not provide in this one instance a specific quote that parroted my own deconstruction? Discounting the fact that I did provide substantial evidence from both Biblical and extra-Biblical sources regarding the admitted necessity of altering the mythology to fit Hellenistic beliefs, confirmed by none other than Paul himself?

Yes, I don't have the book on hand, which is why I posted a link to it. I'm sorry you bought the wrong book and I'm sorry I forgot that a book I read six years ago was not pertinent to the discussion. Please feel free to abuse this admission of fallibility on my part to erroneoulsy (and in good ol' ad hominem way) marginallize my relevant arguments.

Your record on this is staggering, luvluv, and I would ask you to reflect for just a moment that you have chased after the fact that I do not have a direct quote to support a contention that I have demonstrated farily conclusively without need of a direct quote from somebody else.

If you aren't making a call to authority--i.e., impugning me in an ad hominem manner--then address the deconstruction as it stands and we'll all duely note that I have only provided a link to the book, and not actually a quote from it, yes?

Otherwise, I'm going to start turning right around on you and force you relentlessly to provide any evidence at all in support of your own claims, all right?

Enough with this evasion tactic. Address the reasoning I presented and demonstrate how it is flawed in the same manner that anyone would when dealing with interpretation of ancient scripture, yes?

If you don't need to provide a source that directly corroborates your beliefs, then I don't need to provide a source that directly corroborates my deconstruction (even though, the other Pagels book I linked to, does corroborate it). Otherwise, you're just making a call to authority and erroneoulsy forcing me to make one too.

Neither of us need Pagels to confirm what Paul stated and extrapolate from there regarding a concept not found in either Judaism or Hellenism, yet spoken of in a mythology that was first directly used (so far as history records) to convert Hellenized Jews and Gentiles.

Yes, well, she's a theologian, so you'd kind of expect that. Regardless, as I admitted repeatedly, I was mistaken to have suggested that particular book along with "The Origins of Satan," which actually does get into a more detailed discussion of the kinds of things Paul admits to in his letter to the Thesolonians (the same thing that the source I did have on hand to quote confirms; i.e., Burton Mack).

Regardless, and again, go through my argument and present the flaws in the exegesis if you please and then get back on topic and discuss the fear-based elements inherent in the very passage we're debating, yes?

Whether it can be established as being intended for a Greek audience or a Jewish audience or a Roman audience or a whatever audience, there is still the fact that fear is invoked regarding what is ultimately eternal punishment for disbelief embedded in the dogma!

No, I made the positive claim that the notion of the "second death" was designed to "out scare" the Greek notion of Hades. You are aware of such things as the Septuagint, for example, yes and that Thessoloniki was (is) a Greek port in Macedonia, yes, from which the letter to the Thessolonians comes? You also know of what Paul said (and I quoted) in reagard to what lengths he would go to in order to "win" converts, as well as his own admission that the Greeks would find elements of the Jesus mythology a "stumbling block," and that no such concept as a "second death" exists in Judaism, the alleged origin and fulfillment of the law that Jesus is supposed to represent?

Fine, throw them all out and address the fear--yes, I say, fear--inherent within the original quote(s). That was my original argument anyway, that all of this continues to sidetrack away from, IMO.



Yes, in a metaphorical manner only; not in a literal manner! Or do you think that Sisyphus actually existed and spent all eternity pushing a rock up a hill?

In Hades, no less; futher evidence of Greek myths involving life after death in Hades. Sisyphus' punishment is meted out to him in Hades, the land of the dead. Wouldn't it therefore be even more terrifying to a Greek audience who believe Sisyphus, for example, is eternally pushing a rock up a hill in Hades if someone came along and said, "no, no, the god you should fear is the god who has the power to kill Sisyphus' body and soul (the sould that is pushing the rock up a hill in Hades) in hell; the "second death?"



And translating those "vissicitudes of experience" into a fictionallized account for the purposes of metaphor, yes? Myths are allegorical, not literal, yes?

Ok, agreed. Go back to the wisdom sayings of Jesus, then, as I argued in my post to the_cave if you want to remove the mythology, but all you'll find is a somewhat disturbed, fanatical reformed Rabbi whose main claim to fame was to preach the breaking of Jewish dietary and hygiene laws along with the parables of such things as the Wedding Banquet and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and the like.

Go back to the Gospel of Thomas, the original "original" gospel, thrown out by Iraneus because it stated that Jesus said you didn't need anybody as a conduit to God; go back to the real origins of the first Jesus cult and forget entirely the NT since that's where the myth sprang from.

Only problem is, you'll find little to no evidence of Jesus' divinity (and probably find a Jesus that is far more in keeping with your own beliefs, IMO).

Pick up Pagels the Gnostic Gospels. I think you'll find you're much more of a Gnostic than you may have known.

No, I am not. I have carefully detailed precisely what forms the basis of my contention; an ancillary contention that had almost nothing directly to do with my original argument and was only offered in response to your question. You, on the other hand, are latching onto an already admitted mistake of my part (that I offered a book--among two--that does not directly affirm my ancillary argument.

Why are you doing this when you have repeatedly provided absolutely no sources whatsoever in regard to your own claims; such as the claim that "most christians" have no idea about hell or the consequences for disbelief in Jesus/God detailed here and in the basis of their beliefs?

At least of the two of us, I have sought to support my contentions (as ancillary as these particular ones are) with as much evidence and argumentation as I admittedly could; evidence and argumentation that has yet been addressed by you in any direct way. Still.

I don't have "Origins of Satan" on hand to directly confirm an irrelevant argument; that doesn't mean, however, that the fear based elements aren't present.

WHAT?

You are now granting the argument that the Jesus mythology deliberately accounted for regional cult beliefs.

If you can find the "second death" anywhere in the source of the Jesus mythology (i.e., the Old Testament), then by all means, lead on MacDuff!

Yes, in the more splinter groups, as memory serves. Splinter groups, you'll note from her work, such as the first Jesus cult, but you'll also note that such a concept was not excepted by the orthodoxy; i.e., the very group embedded in the Temple that Jesus allegedly overturns.

If you'll recall from the source I did have on hand and quoted directly (as well as Paul), such regionalisms were a concern for the cult leaders and they apparently molded their own mythology accordingly.

Thus we have further evidence of a mythology that has been deliberately crafted to account for all of the reformist, radical ideas of already existing cults in the region; the same thing that happens in the writings of the synoptics and their basing most "wisdom sayings" on the theoretical "Q" source ("Q" for the German Quelle, which means, not surprisingly, "source").

Once again, you are, if not proving my pointing, certainly illustrating it, by pointing out that these concepts were dynamic and not fixed in any kind of historically "true" document; i.e., what you would expect from an eyewitness, transcribed account of what was actually stated.

You're supporting the notion that the myth grew with time and in relation to regional beliefs!

Well, those "debates" were written by the christian cult authors and they were written in and around 80 CE to 120 CE, but, you're absolutely right about the concepts forming ealier on. The Essenes, for example, as I'm sure Pagels mentioned somewhere in that book, had already conceived of a "Righteous One" about a hundred years before Jesus allegedly was born. The "Righteous One" was a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy that died for our sins long before Jesus was supposed to have done the same thing, again, if memory serves.

Look up "Righteous One" in her index for me, will you? See what it says.

Regardless, and yet again your are supporting my point that what we are dealing with in the synoptics, at least, was a deliberately concocted mythology based upon earlier mythology, for a proscribed purpose; the very same purpose that it has been used for millenia; the conversion to the cult.

Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Revelation 14:7
He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

Revelation 19:5
Then a voice came from the throne, saying: "Praise our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, both small and great!"

Acts 10:3-4 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!"
4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked.

Luke 1:50
His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.

Luke 1:74
to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear

Luke 23:40
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence?

Luke 21:11
There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

John 3:20
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

Acts 2:5
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

Acts 5:10-11
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Acts 9:31
Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

Acts 10:2
He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

Acts 13:26
"Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.

Acts 13:50
But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.

Acts 17:4
Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

Acts 17:17
So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

Acts 19:16-18 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.
17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.
18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?

Romans 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Romans 13:3
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

2 Corinthians 5:10-11 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

(note that "respect" is separated out from "fear")

Hebrews 10:26-27 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

1 Peter 1:16-18 ...for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."
17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers...

1 Peter 2:16-18 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

1 John 4:17-18 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.
18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Shall I go on? You'll note, I hope, that there are several quotes that include the use of the word "respect" in the same sentence as they use the word "fear."

Well, that's certainly a claim. What is your argument that I have taken Corinthians 9 out of context?

WHAT?

Chapter eight and nine is all about Paul whining and jusfitivying his right to, in essence, profit off the gospel:

He claims he is due rights and then claims he has not exercised any of those rights for what he is due all for what? What has motivated this rant?

Obviously because someone accused him of fraud, IMO, thus he seeks here to merely justify it.

How does that, however, change what he said about how he will do anything to "win" converts?

Evidence of a change in dietary laws...?

What are you talking about?

[quote]MORE: Paul is VERY CLEARLY NOT advocating adjusting the content of the gospel as it would suit his listeners, but he is advocating restraining our personal liberties so as not to offend those we are trying to convert or lead in Christ:

He is quite clearly stating that he changed according to beliefs in order to "win as many as possible."

Chapter nine of 1 Corinthians has nothing to do with Chapter 8, but then, why would you know that? I thought "most christians" such as yourself were never taught about anything like this?

Note that Chapter 9 is clearly delineated in the NIV as:
The Rights of an Apostle, whereas Chapter 8 is delineated as Food Sacrificed to Idols, meaning that these two chapters contained contextually different concepts:

Chapter 9 has nothing to do with Chapter 8 and is clearly a mea culpa.

And then you quote Chapter 8, which has nothing to do with The Rights of an Apostle, which is an entirely different construct offered in Chapter 9.

NO, it is not! It is in the context of the Rights of an Apostle that he makes these admission!

Bullshit. Chapter 9 is nothing more than a mea culpa for his concluding admissions that he did whatever was necessary to "win" converts!

It's in the very first section that you failed to quote:

To whit the conclusion he declares is the stuff about him "becoming a jew to jews" and the like.

MORE LATER. My computer is signalling that I've run out of memory again. Arggghhh!

Koyaanisqatsi

MORE NOW...

The Chapter you quoted was all a mea culpa, as I demonstrated from his own words in the previous post and will again repeatedly here, and no one said anything about him altering DOCTRINE in that chapter (though, as your own quotes will demonstrate, he definitively does that in other sections also addressed later); I quoted it as an example of Paul's admitted character in defense of The Rights of an Apostle (3 "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me"); you know, the part you didn't quote?

Quite the contrary. I had no idea what lengths you would go to in order to obfuscate the truth of the writings you claim to have no real knowledge of.

I did not "deliberately omit them" as is now clear. You, on the other hand, have engaged in precisely the kind of deliberate obfuscation that I have been on about, so thank you at least for that.

Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians, as you can plainly see have little to nothing to do with each other.

Again, bullshit and apologize, if you please.

Here it is in its entirety for all to judge accordingly:

Let others do as Paul declares and judge him according to those precepts.

How so? All I did was quote Paul:

It speaks volumes for itself, especially in light of my arguments that Paul refers to "Jews who killed the Lord Jesus" in the abstract plural, and not about specific individuals that allegedly committed a crime.

Not true according to both my own evidence and fiach's.

How could he if he's allegedly preaching a gospel of love? Only indirectly, as my quote demonstrates.

Paul is quite clearly and specifically stating that only his teachings are to be followed and ony other gospel of Jesus taught will result in the very fear-based punishment I have been arguing about.

Considering that Paul has been demonstrated to ba liar for the cause by his own admission, why then do you accept his admonitions here regarding some "other" gospel of Jesus?

I shoud think that your own selective exegesis would put you directly in line with Paul.

Bullshit. Plain and simple. He admits himself that he will "become like a jew" in order to "win" converts.

And he is to be trusted in light of his confession why?

The key element, obviously, is what he "considers to be the truth" yes? Do you see anything in what Jesus said regarding circumcision, by any chance? Or that god's chosen have earned his "wrath at last?"

Let's quote the whole relevant passage, yes?

The "law" that Paul is referring to is, of course, Jewish law; the same law that Jesus alllegedly claimed from which no line would be changed (and then went on to change them all).

Paul is clearly changing the law of Yahweh and chastizing the "circumcision group" (aka, the "Jews" again) and Peter in the offing.

He goes one to wildly recreate doctrine in Galatians 3:

In case you didn't pick up on it, the answer to his question is, "because I believe what I heard," furthing proving my point that the whole damn thing is merely inculcated and not reasoned, as well as my point that Paul clearly has rewritten his own gospel and preaches it without compunction.

As you had erroneously declared against me earlier, categorically false, as I have just conclusively demonstrated. Paul advocates nothing but a change in doctrine, preaching against the law of god, which is the Jewish covenant that Jesus claimed "no line" would be removed from.

It's not my claim; it's his.

Because you are wrong, that's why. Ok, more later.

By the way, as one of those among "most christians," you certainly demonstrate a rather comprehensive knowledge of both the actual scriptures and all of the apologetics typically employed to obufscate what's there. Good thing you were never taught any of this stuff!

luvluv

All right Koy, with all due respect you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. If you cannot admit that Paul is very clearly not advocating the changing of the Christian doctrine but is instead advocating the restraint of personal liberties in Chapters 8 and 9 of 1st Corinthians, then you are either too biased or too uninformed for me to continue to go point by point with you. You (very dishonestly, in my opinion) cut out the relevant parts of my post concerning the statement that Paul made about restraining personal liberties lest they become a stumbling block to others, and you flat out SKIPPED (Mr. Point by Point King) the passage in Galations where Paul EXPLICITY STATES that anyone who changes the Gospel for the sake of the comfort of those he is trying to convert should be accursed. You further failed to make any mention of the fact that when Peter actually tried to change some aspects of the Gospel in order to win Jewish converts, Paul openly and publicly attacked him. These notions are signifigant defeaters of your assertion that Paul was willing to alter the gospel for the sake of winning converts.

No, he does not. Your copy of the NIV apparently does, but the actual document is continuous and contains no break or clear delineation.

Here is the ENTIRE disputed portion (and it is chicken excrement for you to post 9 and not both 8 and 9 and then claim you've presented the whole disputed portion "for all to judge"):

Now please tell me where the clear delineation is between the last verse of chapeter 8 and the first verse of chapter 9?

Paul does not address the list in response to an accusation, because he sums up the list of liberties he has willingly forsaken with this:

He sums up the list by saying that he surrendered these priviledges WHY? ".SO THAT WE WILL CAUSE NO HINDRANCE TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST"

And why in the heck does Paul refer to becoming a Jew to Jews in that last section if he is NOT referring to restricting personal liberties and not the law? Your interpretation calls for Paul to make this statement about changing doctrines OUT OF NOWHERE and FOR NO PURPOSE in the context it is currently in. Furthermore, on the dubious assumption that Paul would alter doctrines in order to win converts, he certainly wouldn't want anyone else doing it so WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE ADVOCATE THIS PRACTICE OPENLY.

It is readily apparent to any thinking individual that Paul is absolutely not advocating changing doctrine to win converts. That is further demonstrated in Galatians 1:8-9:

Now when you actually addressed this, you move the goal posts:

I quite obviously did not post that quote to demonstrate that Christianity is not fear-based, but to demonstrate that Paul did not advocate changing the CHRISTIAN gospel (I have to now qualify this because of the equivocation you are going to start later in your remarks.) in order to win converts. It is meant as an argument against number 4 in your list of evidences for the deliberate construction of Hell as a scare tactic:

This is an INCREDIBLY FORCED interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9, particularly when juxtaposed against 2 seperate passages where Paul explicitly states that NO ONE, not him or angels, can change the gospel. So we would have to throw number 4 out of the window, would we not?

But instead of addressing the point in question, which was the fact that number 4 in your list of evidences shows distinct signs of being in error, you totally avoid the question and state that "see Christianity is all about fear"!

And then you have the nerve to try to justify the claim being called into question by referring back to your forced interpretation of that very same claim(!):

Paul has certainly not been demonstrated to be a liar for the cause. It is only on your forced, out of context interpretation that this is so. In fact, when we look for further support for this contention (that Paul advocated changing the gospel to win converts) not only do we find NONE we find statements by Paul which totally contradict it.

Nope, there is no contextual support for this. Explain to me in plain English how you know that by "become like a Jew" Paul meant altering doctrines and not restrainig personal liberties ESPECIALLY WHEN the verse is IMMEDIATELY PREFACED by a list of liberties he has forgone, and that chapter 9 is IMMEDIATELY PREFACES by a chapter long discussion on not using your liberty to offend others (which specific quote you deliberately ommited from your point by point response). Further explain Paul's statement that doctrines cannot be altered BY HE HIMSELF or by angels of heaven in 1st Galatians if what Paul meant by "becoming a Jew to the Jews" was actually what you take it to mean. Further, explain how Paul could chastise Peter for "becoming a Jew to the Jews" if Paul had ADVOCATED this!!!!

THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that this clearly demonstrates that HE WOULD NOT advocate purposely changing the gospel in order to win converts.

Oh for Pete's sake! JESUS changed the law of Yahweh (or altered it, at any rate) and Paul is simply preaching the gospel he has inherited. He CERTAINLY not ALTERING the gospel to make it more palatable to Jews. In fact, this entire passage (and most of his epistles, for that matter) is pretty clear evidence that Paul did not mean by "becoming a Jew to the Jews" changing doctrine to fit Jewish sensibilities. Following Jesus, he disregarded these doctrines. It is the gospel, the Christian message, which Paul says he will not alter, not "the law of Yahweh". Again, you move the goal posts to avoid admitting error.

Seriously, man. I just laughed out loud. I didn't think that could really happen on the internet, but you just proved me wrong.

You've got those goal posts on WHEELS, don't you? It is not the LAW OF GOD that Paul says he will not change, but the GOSPEL OF CHRIST. What you've effectively said is that Christianity is different from Judaism. Yes, that's why they have different names.

I'm not one of the "most Christians" that I was talking about.

Koyaanisqatsi

Enough of this pointlessness, luvluv. I hereby grant your contention regarding Paul. Paul did not change or otherwise augment Jesus' gospel to account for his audiences (and all of the stuff about circumcision that Jesus never mentions is all sufficiently apologized for through Paul's double-talk about "the law" that Jesus stated no line would be changed from and how Paul was not aware of the "stumbling" blocks to conversion he mentioned in 1 Corinthians and all of that stuff about the Jewish god not being just the Jewish god and on and on and on).

Now can we get back to my actual arguments regarding the fear-based doctrines of christianity, please, or should we take this ancillary discussion about Paul where it belongs; to the Bibilical Criticism forum?

Fiach

repost from earlier.

It is so commonly used that most Christians hurl the "God-fearing" phrase as a compliment without thinking. Most of Christianity bypasses the unpleasant task of thinking.

God of Christianity puts the first two humans in a garden. He sets up a sting operation. He puts a tree with luring fruiit, the fruit of knowledge. The he tells them in plain English translation. This tree is wonderful, it would make you like us Gods. Then he tells them not to eat the fruit. Following this he condemns them to death and makes the sin hereditary. So far he is a bloody mean wanker.

God later finds some people sinning too much. So he has a temper tantrum, a rage attack, and floods the Earth to a depth of 8.3 Kilometres with 2.3 billion cubic kilometres of water to murder every infant, baby, toddler, child, and woman/mother, as well as men in the entire world. He also kills every animal in the world except for samples for the Ark. What the feck did the poor bloody animals do to piss off God? Nothing, it was just unnecessary brutality and overkill.

God created a place called Hell. Hell is a place where you burn with the maximum pain and suffering but you don't burn up. You live there forever. This was to house forever all of those who failed to believe in and worship him. Hindus, and Buddists Gods are pussy-cats compared to the Judeo-Christian God.

God is blamed for every catastrophe (tornado, earthquake, volcano) as acts of God. God is responsible for everything that happens. That includes inoperable infant and child brain tumours, Tay-Sach's Disease, Lymphoma, Leukemia, Cancer, strokes, ALS, and he created all infectious organisms such as bacteria, viruses, prions, parasitic protozoa, parasitic worms.

I could go on but where the feck do you see a loving God in this mess? I can understand fearing this God. He is a bloody homicidal monster, sadistic, vengeful, unmerciful, capricious, given to homicidal tantrums of rage. Where is the love here?

Oh, says the robot Christian, He sent his only son to die for our sins. Crikey, he is loving because he had his only son killed? And the sacrifice didn''t work. There are no visible improvements in the human state since the mythical death and resurrection.

To make matters worse, this already mean and nasty god with uncontrollable rage attacks has developed a psychiatric disorder called "Multiple Personality Syndrome". This is true. They say he is one god with three personalities. MPS sufferers have a high risk of being murderers and abusers.

So, does God-fearing make more sense to you now? This is a god that one must fear if you believe in him. The very nastiness of God is the basis of the infamous Pascal's Wager.

Fiach

Fiach

With respect, I feel that you are debating minor trivia in every evil scriptures of fear and hate. Lets look at the whole picture here. Don't take verses or chapters out of context. Look at the entire Bible and what it causes in those borderline human personalities that kill for god.

Seriously, the most outrageous, repugnant, and disgusting immorality, debauchery, cruelty, and injustice ever put into print is in the Christian Bible. Mein Kampf seems like a Boy Scout Manual by comparison.

In both Mein Kampf and the Bible, attribution is made to God as approving the many atrocities. Even Hitler implied in saying he was doing God's work that God commanded him to destroy the Jews. Much the same occurs in the Bible's O.T. many passages in which God orders the Israelite Storm Troopers and Infantry Panzers to go into Canaanite towns to slaughter men, women, children, babies, infants, occasionally rip open pregnant women, and keep young virgin girls as sex slaves (for yourselves.)

No worse book has ever been written. I attack it sometimes with humour. The Author of God on Trial is quite serious. It will make you think of morality over dogma, of good over evil, of compassion over cruelty. I read the Bible to challenge my own views, only to have them reinforced 1000 fold. Try reading God on Trial.

Moral values are loudly attributed by Christians to their God and their Bible. Morality is a product of evolution itself. Early hominids lived in social groups. Certain behaviours proved to be detrimental (murder, rape, child molestation, theft, lying, and cheating.) And those hominids and humans who did this one or more times would be exiled, banished, or executed. This tended to eliminate those with tendencies for that behaviour from the genetic pool. Genes code for human anatomy, cognitive abilities, and moral behaviour. So in general the weak moral genes tended to be eliminated. Recessive ones would still pop up at predictable intervals.

History shows how the savagery of earlier man was improved by social and moral evolution. Religion adopted the commandments, the last 6 because we already have intuitive inhibition of such immoral behaviours as killing, rape, molestation, theft, and lying. The commandments did not come from a hypothetical god. It came from Moses himself and his “inner voice.” All religions tend to make bad behaviours sinful. It is good that it does. It reinforces the evolutionary intuitive morality already in our brain hard-wiring. We go one step further by making laws to further limit the commission of bad or harmful behaviours.

So, those of you who believe in God, I am granting you that religion may have some positive effects on morality. However, sometimes religion becomes perverted as noted in Deuteronomy, Exodus, I-II Samuel, I-II Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joshua, and the immoral Noah’s Flood in Genesis 7-8. Yet studies show that the best behaviour occurs in two groups: Atheists and those who are devoutly religious. Most bad behaviour is in those who are weakly or moderately religious.

Fiach

luvluv

Forgive me, but I've been out of it for a few days.

What exactly is your point about the fear-based nature of Christian dogma? You said that you are not of the opinion that people believe out of fear, so what exactly was your point. I'm being serious, here, believe it or not.

(By the way, I bought The Origin of Satan the other day, you'll be happy to note. I'll let you know what I think.)

Fiach

God on the Brain
By Liz Tucker
BBC Horizon

"Why do some people experience religious visions? BBC Two's Horizon discovers there could be a very practical explanation.

Controversial new research suggests that whether we believe in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe there may be physical differences in the brains of ardent believers.

Inspiration for this work has come from a group of patients who have a strange brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this condition induces bizarre religious hallucinations - something that patient Rudi Affolter has experienced vividly.

Despite the fact that he is a confirmed atheist, when he was 43, Rudi had a powerful religious vision which convinced him he had gone to hell.

"I was told that I had gone there because I had not been a devout Christian, a believer in God. I was very depressed at the thought that I was going to remain there forever."

Clinical evidence

Gwen Tighe also has the disorder. When she had a baby, she believed she had given birth to Jesus. It was something her husband Berny found very difficult to understand.

"She said, isn't it nice to be part of the holy family? I thought, holy family? It then turned out she thought I was Joseph, she was Mary and that little Charlie was Christ."

Professor VS Ramachandran, of the University of California in San Diego, believed that the temporal lobes of the brain were key in religious experience. He felt that patients like Rudi and Gwen could provide important evidence linking the temporal lobes to religious experience.

So he set up an experiment to compare the brains of people with and without temporal lobe epilepsy. He decided to measure his patients' changes in skin resistance, essentially measuring how much they sweated when they looked at different types of imagery.

What Professor Ramachandran discovered to his surprise was that when the temporal lobe patients were shown any type of religious imagery, their bodies produced a dramatic change in their skin resistance.


The activity of specific neural circuits makes these patients more prone to religious belief
Prof VS Ramachandran, University of California
"We found to our amazement that every time they looked at religious words like God, they'd get a huge galvanic skin response." This was the very first piece of clinical evidence revealing that the body's response to religious symbols was definitely linked to the temporal lobes of the brain.

"What we suggested was that there are certain circuits within the temporal lobes which have been selectively activated in these patients and somehow the activity of these specific neural circuits makes them more prone to religious belief."

Scientists now believe famous religious figures in the past could also have been sufferers from the condition. St Paul and Moses appear to be two of the most likely candidates.

But most convincing of all is the evidence from American neurologist Professor Gregory Holmes. He has studied the life of Ellen G White, who was the spiritual founder of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. Today, the movement is a thriving church with over 12 million members.

During her life, Ellen had hundreds of dramatic religious visions which were key in the establishment of the church, helping to convince her followers that she was indeed spiritually inspired. But Professor Holmes believes there may be another far more prosaic explanation for her visions.

Head trauma

He has discovered that at the age of nine, Ellen suffered a severe blow to her head. As a result, she was semi-conscious for several weeks and so ill she never returned to school.

Following the accident, Ellen's personality changed dramatically and she became highly religious and moralistic.

And for the first time in her life, she began to have powerful religious visions.

Professor Holmes is convinced that the blow to Ellen's head caused her to develop temporal lobe epilepsy.

"Her whole clinical course to me suggested the high probability that she had temporal lobe epilepsy. This would indicate to me that the spiritual visions she was having would not be genuine, but would be due to the seizures."

Professor Holmes' diagnosis is a shattering one for the Seventh-day Adventist movement. Their spokesman, Dr Daniel Giang, is a neurologist as well as a member of the church.


Ellen White's visions lasted from 15 minutes to three hours or more - that's quite unusual for seizures
Dr Daniel Giang, Seventh-day Adventist Church
He dismisses the claims, insisting the visions started too long after the accident to have been caused by it. He goes on to say: "Ellen White's visions lasted from 15 minutes to three hours or more. She never apparently had any briefer visions - that's quite unusual for seizures."
We will never know for sure whether religious figures in the past definitely did have the disorder but scientists now believe the condition provides a powerful insight into revealing how religious experience may impact on the brain.

They believe what happens inside the minds of temporal lobe epileptic patients may just be an extreme case of what goes on inside all of our minds.

For everyone, whether they have the condition or not, it now appears the temporal lobes are key in experiencing religious and spiritual belief."

Horizon: God On The Brain will be broadcast in April on BBC Two.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...re/2865009.stm

Published: 2003/03/20 14:19:25

© BBC MMIII

luvluv

Fiach:

What does that have to do with what we are discussing? I've read that article already (in fact I think it was you who presented it to me in another thread) and I am keeping up with this field of research.

Fiach

My primary work now is on an Alzheimer's Disease Research Project. Maybe I got some of that APO - e shite and I can't remember thngs. BTW which forum is this?

Fiach