luvluv

Koy:

I'm about halfway through it and she hasn't said anything about it yet, Hellenistic or otherwise. Judging from the general direction of the book I'm betting that you're thinking about the Origins of Satan. It seems to fit the title of that book better, anyway.

Okay, even if I were to grant that, does the fact that it is a collection of myths justify your claim for the intent of the construction of the myths? Understand that I am not asking you why you think the New Testament is a collection of mythological tales. I am asking you how you know the myths were intentionally constructed to be more frightening than the myths of other religions.

For instance, if I were to construct an devestating argument for the position that Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings to get chicks, could I justify that statement by saying: "Well, the Lord of the Rings is a collection of myths, therefore I can make up whatever I want about it's origins. Therefore, until someone PROVES that the Ring stories are not mythological, then my contention that they were written to get chicks stands."

And frankly, from what I've read so far of the Pagels book, I am surprised that you think this was even necessary given how Pagels develops how the central Christian message of the equality of all men before God and the contrast of Christian morality with the sort of lasciviousness of the Pagans combined to make the gospel so enticing to the lower classes. Pagels seems to think that it was this message, in addition to the heroic way in which so many Christian martyrs fearlessly gave their lives for their faith, that eventually won over most Christian converts. Do you disagree with her?

Well, as my original retort to your argument went, you are begging the question by assuming that most of the violence committed by Christians was undertaken with the intent to convert. There really is no question that the Christians who actually did go about attempting to convert by the edge of the sword were wrong to do so. You'll find very little support in the Bible for the notion of conversion through violence or conquest. Jesus and Paul, the founders of the faith, certainly set no precedent for this. The Gospel of Christ certainly does not endorse forcing people to convert to Christianity, however some Christians have taken that path unfortunately, and for a very long time.

Wait a second, as the Pagels book points out the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS were SUBJECT to violent repression. They were not agents of violent repression. There is no doubt that the Christian movement AS FOUNDED was a movement of non-violence. Christians refused to worship the gods of the state even though they knew the penalty for this was death. They neither resisted their captors nor attempt escape. They never mounted armed resistance in any large numbers. They willfully and often boldly underwent execution.

This is what I mean when I say that everyone picks and chooses what they intend to emphasize about a particular subject. You are emphasizing the institutionalized church from the time of Constantine onwards, and trying to pass that generation off as the "original" cult members, while ignoring the three centuries of non-violent Christianity more characterized by martyrdom than by anything else. So it seems obvious to me that, chronologically speaking, we must regard non-violent Christianity as the true form of the faith and regard subsequent attempts on the part of some believers to convert through physical force instead of through non-violent sacrifice to be heretical. You're critiqe purposely skips a generation (or 6) in order to arrive at a manifestation of Christianity that is easily criticized. You, as an anti-theist, insist that the worst carricature that can be made of the Christian faith must be what Christianity must REALLY MEANS, and I as a theist insist that the best portrait of Christianity must be what Christianity REALLY MEANS.

The difference between us, I guess, is that I am at least able to admit there are bad parts, while you seem incapable of mentioning any of the positive aspects of the faith... at least to this juncture in our on-line discussion.

Right. And if Democracy were really about freedom and equality then there would never be any need for the war in Vietnam, or Grenada, or Libya, and don't even get me started about Panama.

We are neither of us that naive though, are we Koy?

We know that an Ideal can be founded with the purist intentions and with the soundest doctrine, and practitioners of that Ideal can take it in directions for which the ideal was never intended, without detracting from the Ideal at all. And since practioners of an Ideal are meant to follow that Ideal, and not other practitioners, the work of any of the practitioners in no way works it's way into the definition of the Ideal UNLESS the behavior reinforces or exemplifies the Ideal.

This country was founded on (at least partially) on the sincere ideal of Democracy. The ideal remains despite the fact that it has never been actually realized. In actual practice, people who supposedly revere or adhere to the principles of Democracy support repressive both here and around the globe. Does that mean that democracy was ALWAYS really ABOUT surpressing freedom?

I know you will say that this analogy is false, since there is some mention of violence and fear in the very central tenats of Christianity, but none in the central tenets of Democracy. But this is not so, in our very constitution there have been statements made regarding the central INEQUALITY of man (suggesting that blacks, for instance, were 3/5 of a person). So could a skeptic of democracy quote these passages and say that the original intent of democracy as an Ideal was to deny the citizenship of blacks, women, and the poor? Because this denial was written into the fabric of the original docments of the first democratic nation in the world.

So I say all this to say that there is not contradiction involved in Christianity REALLY being all about love of God and love of one's neighbors (as the founder of the religion very explicitly claimed it to be) and certain Christians straying from that message for a long time. Just as democracy can really be about freedom and equality while some democrats (small d) deny that freedom and equality to their peers, so Christianity can be, as a religion, all about love while particular Christians can have failed to live up to that Ideal for a very long time.

It happens with every major movement in human history. The practitioners fail to live up to the Ideal.

You haven't made this point well enough yet for me to critique it sufficiently. How exactly does a belief in Hell enable an Inquisition?

Granted but it is your contention, after all, that Christianity is fundamentally based in fear. My point is that I could draw out a LONGER list of scriptures than you have quoted and make the case that Christianity is fundamentally based in love. So since BOTH viewpoints are supportable from scripture, and since, as you say, scripture is basically the center of your argument, how do you justify your viewpoint over an opposing one?

If I were to state, as I do, that despite periods of failing to live up to that Ideal, Christianity is actually based on love... would you say I was objectively wrong? Or would you simply disagree?\

It seems to me, as you seem to be close to admitting now, that your whole spiel just boils down to one man's opinion. I have no problem with that.

There is a chapter in Adam, Eve, and the Serpent about the Gnostics, and I was reading that today. Actually, I thought the same thing about myself when I read that portion. I think I am partially Gnostic but I am not nearly as weird. I may be an Orthodox Gnostic, if that means anything. I think scriptures can have a legitimate subtext but only if that subtext was intended by the author. I think the Adam and Eve story, for instance, is probably mostly symbolic, and that the literal interpretations miss much of what is intended in the myth.

You suggested that all Christians had to at least have a belief in substitutionary atonement to be worthy of the name. I'm asking how you arrived at that opinion, given that many people who call themselves Christians do not believe in substitutionary atonement.

You've answered this question rhetorically, but again I'm looking for a straight answer here:

Who gets to decide who is authentically Christian? You seem to have criteria in your head, how did you arrive at them? What makes your criteria superior to the criteria of others, like some Unitarians, who do not believe in substitionary atonement?

Well, if someone did come up to you and say just that, would you feel you had the right to tell that person that he wasn't "really" a Christian? Most Christians do believe in substitutionary atonement. Some don't. Do you feel comfortable saying that the people who do not are not Christians?

What I was trying to get at, however, in that statement was something truly central to all Christian believers. In all honesty, though, I don't think there is anything which EVERYONE who believes they are a Christian would all believe. I myself do not believe that Jesus was God. Am I a Christian?

Well, first of all that is an excessively anectdotal means of forming an opinion. No matter how many Christians you can reasonably claim to have known, you have still only known an incredibly small minority of believers. The personal testimony of the people you know hardly qualifies you to make statements about what Christianity as a whole endorses. Secondly, I never claimed to represent what all Christians believe. You are making sweeping indictments of ALL CHRISTIANITY and I am just pointing out to you examples of where your critique is simply innacurte by pointing out SOME Christians who do not believe as you say. If there is a significant portion of Christians who have no concept of the theological centrality of fear of punishment, then it is really impossible for you to say that ALL Christianity is based on a fear of punishment. I'm attempting to point out exceptions to your rule, but this is really harkening back to when I thought you were making an individualistic psychological case for the role of fear in instilling belief.

Excuse me, but your interpretation is ABOUT what people believe, and so if no one actually believes that way then your interpretation IS wrong!

I don't think it's really necessary. I think anyone with a rough familiarity with the Bible knows that there are relevant passages which you are omitting which work against the case you are presenting. I think anyone who knows this will understand that you probably know that too, and will probably then figure out whether or not your are trying to make an objective case or simply extrapolating on your particular prejudices.

This harkens back to our misunderstanding. I assumed you were saying that a fear of punishment is what originally motivates all belief. To which I replied that WHEN I FIRST CONVERTED I had no belief in hell, so it would have been impossible for a fear of hell to have been the motivation of my conversion. Yes I am obviously aware of the doctrine of hell now, but what I was arguing was that there are many people who are Christians who either have no knowledge or belief in hell so a belief in hell could not have been part of their original decision to believe.

I don't have a particular sect, by the way. But every sect of every philosophy or concept marginalizes some things and emphasizes others. That is hardly a peculiarity of faith. Some philosophy teachers give much lip service to the uplifting effects of critical thought while never mentioning that it has an excellent track record of leading people to depression. It's true of everything, so why do you keep bringing it up about Christianity like it's some sort of relevant critique?

It is a moral argument. The foundation of morality, as I see it, is to guide humanity to act in ways that are ultimately in their best interests.

But what if the "objective morality" IS: "Bring about the best possible state of affairs, so far as you are able."?

Would it not follow that God would be able to do things which we cannot, because of His superior ability? God could know, by killing a certain individual, (or, more probably, by allowing a certain individual to be killed) that he could bring about a much better state of affairs in the long run. None of us can know that our acts of violence will actually lead to a better state of affairs (which is the lesson I'm afraid our country is about to learn).

Where in the scriptures does it say that only people who believe that Jesus is God can be called Christians?

Fiach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the scriptures, however, only those who believe that Jesus is Yahweh and somehow, inexplicably, died for your sins (i.e., substitutionary attonement) can be called a christian, since without it, there is nothing extraordinary about the claims of the NT or Jesus, for that matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where in the scriptures does it say that only people who believe that Jesus is God can be called Christians?

I realise that you are posing a rhetorical question but it is of extreme importance. Many of Europes worst wars and atrocities were over this otherwise silly issue of which christinns is a Christian. I have debated this with Christian on this and my previous favourite forum Worldbeliefs.com. Roman Catholics once claimed that they were the true faith but have quite mellowed in recent years and admit that other christians are christians. The main christian chauvinists today are the Fundamentalists. They claim that only the born-again types of Fundamentalists are the only Christians beside the specific interpretation of the scriptures.

Of course the scriptures do not use the word "Christian" and set up no guidelines on what should be a Christian. The closest they come to exclusionism is the comment by Jesus that one could come to the Father only through Him (Jesus). That comment in itself does not define what he means by "through" him. It doesn't say if it means "model you life after me", "say my name a lot," "recognise me as a god," "recognise me as the major God," "recognise me as a created god from the High God(Arian)," or "follow my sermon on the mount."

I think that any Christian who denies the title Christian to others who "follow", "venerate," "worship", or "model their lives" on Jesus Christ, that person is an arrogant bigot. Such a person is the one who gives all Christians a bad name, as the Taliban did to all Muslims.

Fiach

luvluv

I agree totally, Fiach.

Or dare I say...

Amen...

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, as I pointed out previously.

The intent can be discerned from reading the myths as myths, yes?

Good, because pointing out the obvious is a pain.

How I know they were, or how I contend they were, based on books I've read that likewise deconstruct the myths once read as myths in this fashion and my own ability to discern what are traditionally Hellenistic concepts (such as Hades) and purely christian cult creations, such as Hell, called the "second death" (based, allegedly, on an earlier cult dogma--Judaism--that has no description of either in any like degree)?

And further, for what purpose? This is another ancillary point that I have no problems granting I don't have a direct quote from somebody else (since I don't have my copy of Pagels on hand to quote directly the same logic and reasoning I nearly plagiarized when I made the observation previously), so what's the point?

As the quotes I did provide from Mack, we've established the fact that the authors did indeed tailor their apologetic to a Greek audience necessarily so at least in regard to the most important element of the NT (the passion narrative), and the reason why that was necessary.

But we also know the exact same thing from Paul:

Notice how Paul confirms exactly what Mack had written about and I posted previously the first time I responded to this in regard to the fact that christian dogma would have to be tailored to the Greeks/Hellenistic Jews because of their previous beliefs.

Does this support directly what I contended about the "second death" Jesus threatens his followers with? No, I already granted the fact that I didn't have the particular book on hand that would directly address it, so instead I provided a link to it (along with another book of hers that I thought also addressed it initially, but I was incorrect).

Beside the fact that you know all of this and are still making a call to authority out of this contention, do I need a PhD in theology to add up the following points in support of my contention? No:

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 [b]and[//b] soul (the word "Hades" is used in Revalations, mind you)--aka, the "second death"--can not be found 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.

So, you see, even absent my directly quoting Pagels to support a contention of mine, there is more than enough compelling argumentation and evidence to support my making the original contention, regardless of how ancillary this whole thing was and is to my primary argument.

Wow. The staggering amount of irony is just overwhelming.

Well, beside the fact that this is precisely the justification cult members rely upon (as do you) to justify their own beliefs, had you perhaps provided a quote or two from the Lord of the Rings like I did with the Bible, perhaps you could justify that statement.

See, that's what it means to support one's contention. The fact that I did not have a direct quote from a theologist on hand that said exactly the same thing I said is hardly a salient observation.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I do not hold with what you "seem" to think Pagel's message is. Fair enough?

Oh really? You don't read your bible, do you?

Mighty odd beginning of a letter (to the Greeks, I believe), don't you think? Something happened that is only alluded to by Paul, that he spends a significant deal of time assuring the Thessolonians wasn't his fault; that he (and those with him presumably, unless Paul took to referring to himself in the "royal we") was the persecuted one and that they know this (even though he still goes to great lengths to convince them of this), concluding finally with the most telling (and cryptic) part of all, that the Thessolonians are witness of how "holy, righteous and blameless" they were among "you who believed."

So, let's just say something funky was going on that compelled Paul to apolgize for and seek their agreement upon something that they were blameless for; implying, of course, that somebody blamed them for something, but let's continue. This is just the precursor:

A deliberate lie since it's myth? Sorry, ancillary. Let's get to the meat:

Now, does Paul directly preach any violence against Jews? No. He doesn't have to. He becomes like a Greek by claiming that the victimization the Greeks apparenlty inflicted on the Thesollonian sect was just like what the Jews did to us; the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.

Notice he doesn't say which "Jews" did this; he chastizes all Jews and notice how he states that it was the "Jews" (plural and unnamed) who killed their Lord Jesus Christ (which wasn't true; it was the Romans; indirect claims of the synoptics that the Jewish Sanhedrin and/or the ludicrous myth of the "Jewish" crowd influencing the Romans aside) did this. And further that they "displease god and are hostile [b]to all men" in their effort to preach the word of Jesus.

And further, that "in this way they always heap their sins to the limit."

And even further (as if that weren't enough to imply, at the very least, a hatred of all "Jews"), he ends with "The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

Now, I don't have time to get into a whole rehash of another thread that argued farily conclusively that there were little to no Jewish reprisals against the first christians (the first of my last ones before I retired, no less , so if I can find it in the archives here I'll post the link), but set all that aside and grant for the sake of argument that it was true and there was significant persecution of early christians by Jews (again, note the plural), this is clear evidence of Paul (half of what you asked; I'll get to Jesus in a minute) clearly priming a violent pump in regard to how the Thessollonians, at least (if not all those who read Paul as gospel) should regard all Jews.

"They" murdered their god and savior; are out to get christians in apparently violent ways; and that they--the chosen ones--have the wrath of god upon them at last; like everyone knows it's been a long time in coming.

Again, granted for the sake of argument that Paul is not just becoming like a Greek in order to win them over and he is directly referring to actual unnamed "Jewish" oppressors what about Jesus preaching to turn the other cheek and love one's enemies? Woudn't Paul, especially, be more concerned with preaching exactly that message particularly in this instance (whatever it is), since it involved precisely this type of situation that Jesus allegedly spoke nothing but love toward?

Or are you now going to claim the Paul was the first of many to pervert Jesus' teachings to his own machinations? If so, I certainly agree, but first we'd also have to go to the heart of what Jesus actually said about loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek; what the motivation for saying what he said truly was, yes?

As I've already quoted and deconstructed precisely this in this thread, I'll leave it to you to apply it here and point out that my "interpretation" thus fits perfectly with what Paul tells the Thesollonians. Jesus did not preach "love your enemies," he preached that one should love one's enemies, because their oppression meant one is blessed by god after you are dead and in no longer matters.

Not to mention that he came not to bring peace, but a sword; that he came to set brother against brother and father against son and to basically wreck the whole damn household; not to mention that if you don't hate everyone in your life you can't be his disciple; not to mention that if you don't love Jesus above all others in your life you will not be found "worthy" of him; etc., etc., etc.

Remember: deliberately concocted mythology.

So, you do the math on the "dark" side. We already know what your math is on the "light" side, yes?

First of all, which "Gospel of Christ" are you referring to and secondly, Paul, at least does indeed endorse anything necessary to convert to christianity! So is Paul now to be unjustifiably discarded by you as just another one of "some" christians that have take that path for arguably two thousand and two years?

Remember: deliberately concocted mythology. That would include, of course, the "Gospel of Christ," whatever that is.

The severity of which and whether or not said repression came from Jews or Christians is in contention, however (again, I'll seek out the link to the post that discussed this in great detail and post it in a follow up), but even if that were granted, the question as to why they may have met violent repression can be easily found in what Paul, especially, and Jesus, ancillary, may have preached, yes?

I don't grant that in the slightest. And based on such declarations as "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" and his declaration that he came to set father against son and mother against daughter and so on and so on and that only those who hated their family and friends and own life also could be his disciples and what both Matthew and Luke confirm ("He who is not with me is against me") neither, apparently does Jesus.



Jesus did not preach non-violence, he preached rejoicing in one's oppression and love one's enemies because their oppression makes you blessed in God's eyes.

At best, he preached acquiescence to authority; to remain docile in the face of it. Why? Not to stop the oppression, as Gandhi allegedly (and, arguably, erroneously) concluded and put into practice, but because the meek shall inherit the earth, a claim that could in no way be substantiated, especially in light of it being deliberately concocted mythology.

Set your wayback machine to that time period and apply that maxim to what Paul was preaching.

That was under the Romans and anyone, including Jews, who did not worship the gods of the state even though they knew the penalty was put to death at the whims of the various Roman leades who chose to implement that law.

As we know, however, that law was not always enforced, or there would have been nobody but pagans left throughout the entire Roman Empire.

Ok, now I'm going to call you out and ask for a quote supporting this, with a particular emphasis on the who and the when, since now you're just making overarching claims based more on apologetic propaganda.

No, I am not. I am deconstructing what the bible actually says iin regard to my original argument and here in regard to your ancillary sidetrack.

Everyone was "violentrly repressed" in that region and remain so to this day, so what is your point and how is it relevant to my original argument regarding the fear-based content of the christian dogma?

NONE of this stuff (including the Inquisition) has anything to do with my original argument; this is nothing more than pointless rebuttal of already granted ancillary responses to your intitial sidetrack questions.

Categorically false and, IMO, deliberately misleading (unless you're knowledge of history is as selective as your exegesis appears to be), as I will demonstrate by posting the link to that other thread that thoroughly destroys this contention, but, again and regardless, what is your point?

Grant for the sake of argument (only) that there was "three centuries of non-violent christianity" in the region. Considering that they were a religious cult under the control and rule of the Roman Empire during that time and everyone was largely non-violent against the state and Jesus taught them to love their enemies because their oppression meant they were blessed by god, what does would this prove? That Jesus didn't also state almost in the same breath that he came not to bring peace but a sword and that the kingdom of God (recall the parable of the wedding guest?) was come and all of the wrath that implies from the Old testament?

Or that Paul didn't preach that Jews (note the plural) were christ killers and that they are "hostile to all men" and have acrued the wrath of their own God?

You mean, based on your fallacious assertions? Regardless, it's hardly surprising that they could be considered non-violent (as you claim) under the oppression of the Romans, but, again, click on the link I'll provide in a follow up to this post that will conclusively disprove and explain the who. what and when of all of your unwarranted hyperbole.

No, it does not. You're assertions that I have skipped these generations is not at all warranted. I stated "centuries of victimization, torture and murder"; I never qulified when that began.

Regardless, what you are arguing here is what I have been arguing the whole time; that subsequent cult apologetics and how they grew and what they grew into are irrelevant to what is actually in the scriptures themselves!

You keep dancing around and around the point with these irrelevant sidetrack excursions you go on, so please, for the love of God, stop it.

All your observations here point to is that we must both go to the actual source (or as close as we can get, of course) for a discussion on the fear based constructs, yes?

Nice.

No, the difference is that I am supporting my contentions through careful, detailed deconstructing of the actual words and you are arguing for a selectively applied apologetic that seeks to deny those words.

As for anything postive regarding the faith, the negatives far outweigh them, as we both agree in so far as how the faith (as you put it) has been used.

The real difference between us being that you think millenia of this victimization, torture and murder is the result of "some" individuals who pervert the gospel message to their own machiavellian ends and I contend that it is the dogma itself that instills such mentality. The rest later.

keyser_soze

Didn't read all of the posts, got to where a link to the original article was and went there, read their posts....Those guys are wound a little tight. I mean like head popping off a flailing body tight. Whew. Glad I don't belong there. Not that I'm LAUGHING at something they might say, as it would obviously be RUDE. And I'm sure not going to question their beliefs, as that is considered RUDE. And I don't want to dig into their beliefs myself, because I'm obviously NOT WORTHY. Oi!

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, what do you know, luvluv, the thread that I was referring to above is the one you instigated against me just prior to my first retirement! No wonder this all seemed like so much familiar redirectionist shrapnel!

Here's the page where the detailed deconstruction of alleged early christian martyrs is and the evidence that supports little to no persecution of the early christians for their beliefs. Take note of the qualifier, since you didn't last time either: Hey, Koyaanisqatsi! Page 4 (from the secweb archives).

Here are a few pertinent quotes to your sidetrack in this thread from that thread (along with a link to the website I referenced regarding the debunking of early christian persecution):

I.e., for their beliefs.

And then, if you'll recall, there was also this from my post quoting the same site for support:

And then there was the quote from Melito, the Bishop of Sardis:

In other words, the scant evidence we do have points more to a persecution of christians by other christians, most notably Paul.

Now, can we move on (or rather, back) to my primary argument regarding the fear-based structure of the original dogma?

Koyaanisqatsi

Fine, is dogma more to your liking? According to the dogma only those...blah, blah, blah?

According to the scriptures, only those who hate everyone in their lives (including their own life) are elligible to be his disciples.

The point I was making was that if you don't accept those two primary tenets of christianity (that Jesus is God and that Jesus died for your sins), then why call yourself a christian at all, since absent belief in either of those concepts, all one has from the NT is a teacher who was killed by the Romans?

It's a safe bet that there were many hundreds of teachers killed by the Romans. Why not call yourself a Schlomo-ite or a Moabist or a Tom-Dick-And Harriest, or other such random names from that list?

Yes, more support that it was largely christians who persecuted other christians .

Yes, funny that, considering it's all just a doctrine of love and goodness toward man and nothing else exists in that doctrine that would lead all of those christian factions to think, believe, or act otherwise.

So, fine, you're right. There is nothing substantial whatsoever to being called a christian and anything can be tossed out that isn't personally palatable; so toss out that Jesus died for your sins or that Jesus was the Messiah or that Jesus repeatedly claims (both directly and indirectly) to be god (to the point of him being stoned twice by the "Jews" for such blasphemy.

Toss out And
Remember, that's God (Yahweh) describing Jesus.

Not to mention:

Recall the Parable of the Wedding Banquet, where Jesus his bad ol' self is the one who compares God to a king who ties and bounds the shabby dressed guest (in stark contradiction to what is said in James 2, no less:
1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism.
2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.
3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet,"
4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?)

Then there's also this from James 2 (ancillary, but on a different point): 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

And then, of course, we should just throw out the most confusing thing Jesus ever said in regard to his divinity later in Matthew 22 (after the parable of the Wedding Banquet, and after he rewrites the ten commandments):

No doubt, considering Hebrews above: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

I agree, but you should take that up with christians. The question I put to luvluv had nothing to do with that, however. My question was, if you don't believe that Jesus is God or that Jesus died for your sins, that what necessarily makes you a "christian," since those are arguably the two primary beliefs that delineate christianity?

And further, if you can just selectively toss out anything you don't like about what Jesus said, then how are you "modelling" your life on Jesus?

Now, can we get back to my original argument regarding the fear-based elements to the dogma? Although what you've posted here may be more in keeping with the inherent question in the OP title, we can do anything anyone wants at this point. Just let me know is all I ask.

Addressing any of these ancillary arguments may certainly have been my fault to begin with, and I apologize for being suckered into addressing them, but they have been thoroughly addressed at this point, IMO, so just let me know and we can move on.

Fiach

I'll have to pass on this last comment until I find out what you are talking about.

Fiach

Koyaanisqatsi

So, you're saying what, fiach?

That the victors (the Catholic Church, presumably) rewrote the history so that history records a systematic persecution of christians, when in fact it was a systematic persecution by christians on other christians, as I pointed out previously?

So, you're confirming that there was little to no systematic external persecution of christians (as my source confirms as well); rather mostly internal persecution, starting, arguably, with Paul, as I contended and this bears out.

So, a doctrine of love was perverted almost immediately, by one of the founding fathers of christianity.

Sounds about right to me, except for all of the evidence that proves it was never a doctrine of love.

I don't see how what you've posted does anything other than further support my original argument, but I'll wait until you can go back and read it.

Fiach

I think I complement your thesis with some additional readings that recognises your comments while expanding the expose of Trinitarian Christian persecution of any dissent Christian or Pagan.

Fiach