Koyaanisqatsi

Would that be the "wisdom" that instructs his followers to rejoice in their oppression and love their enemies, not as a means to stop the oppression, but because their oppression means they are "blessed" by god?

The same "wisdom" that came not to bring peace, but a sword?

The same "wisdom" that stated one had to hate every single person they ever loved, including their own lives, in order to be his disciple?

The same "wisdom" that megomaniacally declared that if one did not love Jesus more than any other person in their lives, then they would not be found "worthy" of him?

The same "wisdom" that instructed his followers to fear God, because he has the power (and the will) to destroy both body and soul in hell?

The same "wisdom" that told his devotees to render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's; to turn the other cheek when struck by authority; to not blame the tax collector (i.e., nothing but pure acquiescence and obediance to the very people who are oppressing them and causing their suffering), all because this makes them "blessed" in a fictitious myth's eyes?

Would this be the same "wisdom" that itself marks little more than a continuum of a Jewish "civil war"; borne out of the decades prior to any emergence of Jesus, largely through the Essene movement?

So let's recap. Jesus is nothing more than yet another cult leader forming his own revision of Jewish law, preaching hatred and fear in the guise of loving God, and absolute allegiance to Jesus first and foremost; to god second (no one gets to the father unless it's through Jesus), thereby, arguably, doing nothing more than acting as the first instigator and martyr for all of the internal factionalizations that you document, that clearly began decades before with such splinter, radical Jewish sects like the Essenes.

Great! Now all of the pieces to the puzzle are in place and the truth about christianity revealled; a transparent power play to take over the Jewish cult from its capital, that caught on through the devious machinations of scum like Paul crafting the mythology to suit the audience, which, was largely Greek (though, obviously this progrom was agreed upon by the Roman occupiers during its ealier phases, as my evidence shows).

So, I was correct. The fear-based, revisionist Jewish dogma was deliberately concocted in order to take over control (or at least usurp the stronghold) of the Jewish cult in their capital as both an extension of previously existing cult factions as well as, considering when the passion mythology was written, in direct coincidence with the Roman war against the Jews.

There was no persecution of any early "christians" because of their beliefs and a corrupt doctrine that was either borne out of Jewish factionalism or out of Roman collusion, as I maintain is the case, only continued to lead to more corruption until eventually, internal mass murder.

All over a doctrine of nothing but love and goodness and puppy dogs and rainbows, right luvluv?

So now we know precisely why it is all fear-based and seeks to confuse love and fear and how some elements are typically "Jewish" and some elements are typically "Hellenistic" and many elements are pro-Roman and why the whole damn thing is a direct cause of centuries of victimization, torture and murder.

He came not to bring peace, but a sword indeed!

the_cave

Koy, where's the rest of your response to my post? I'm dying here! Help!

Fiach

I am not going to respond point to point. But you know very well that I wanted to waste an hour, I could look up a whole shitload of Jesus telling you to love thy neighbour as thyself. You have mentioned the ones that contradict this.

So the Bible is full of fecking contradictions. That will be the headline of the London Times tomorrow morning, the war discussed on page 2. The Bible is ambivalent on most issues even murder. "Thou shalt not Kill (unless it is an infidel whose house is on land that you want." This is a major justification for the terrible way Israel has treated the native palestinians. You want Abdul's land so you kill him as a "terrorist" evict his famiily or kill them too, and bulldoze the house for the pre-planned settlement.

Fiach

Unbeliever

Is 'belief by whim' ever justified? It seems to me that Apologetix is saying "I want to believe, and you can't stop me!" That's all well and good, as long as he, and his Christian authorities don't try to force me to believe in their stupidity. I don't want to believe, and you can't make me!

Fiach

Do I dislike asparagus because I choose to dislike it. It is green like lots of vegies that I like. My brothers and sister liked it. My parents did. So I expected to like it. But the first taste, and "Yuck". Repeated attempts and it was still "yuck." Why did I not like the taste of asparagus? I like amost every other food. I think my taste buds and my olfactory gyri of the subfrontal-temporal area of my brain just processed the input and said, "No."

One area that needs more clarification is that of choice in belief and its consequences. I don't think that any of us choose to believe anything. We believe that the Rocky Mountains exist because we and every person with eyesight can see them. We don't choose to believe that they exist as we stand at the Lodge at Lake Louise. We don't choose to believe that we are tired after working 10 hours without a break. We can't see Atoms and protons but we know they exist because of the abundant scientific data, the secondary results of chemical reactions etc. We know atoms are real, we don't choose to believe in atoms.

We don't believe in cubical spheres, the square root of minus one, or that a snail can play Lord Gordon's Reel on a fiddle. We know that those are not possible by any natural law. We don't believe them; we don't choose to not believe.

God is in a different category. He is invisible, inaudible, intangible, and non-tactile to our investigation. But so is outer space dark matter. He is or is not the creator of the universe. If he is such a creator we don't know if he is sentient (conscious) and intelligent or on a level different from human mentality. As a result some people believe and others do not. It might seem like choice but I can tell you it is not. If it were simple choice, I would have been a believer since childhood.

My life would have been far nicer if I could have honestly identified as a believer. There is no advantage anywhere in being a non-believer, only varying degrees of negative social stigma.

So here is my question. If I did (and I did) spend years wrestling with the question of God's existence. I was taught standard Christian (Anglican almost Catholic) theology. I studied the bible and had as I said taken a theology elective in each of my four years at university. I had counselling with our local pastor. I did this because I "wanted" to believe. I tried to choose to believe but it just wouldn't stick. Now as I note a few grey hairs among my formerly solid black mane, I note my approaching mortality. I want to be "right". So I try to find a reason, even an excuse to believe in God and have immortality. That is a very desirable situation.

An Atheist believes that at death, all is over forever. That is not very pleasant. So I should be motivated to find that I am wrong. I know that my elder years would be nicer if I looked forward to an afterlife and a good afterlife. But my brain networking will not process the data and classify it as possible, probable, or rational. It therefore rejects the God hypothesis. It is not a conscious choice not to believe. (Previously posted by me.)


Fiach

Magus55

The Bible is only full of contradictions because you want it to be so. All supposed contradictions are explainable to Christians.

And sorry but the Bible doesn't say thought shalt not kill, so its not a contradiction. The original hebrew was Thou shalt not murder. Hence why the killings in the OT were allowed. They were killed by judgement for their sins and crimes. Same reason God allowed and supported some wars. They had a purpose.

Fiach

They were murdered in my opinion. Their sin was idolatry, believing in a different invented god. The Israelite's purpose was to destroy unbelievers and disbelievers and to take their land and possessions. They brag about dividing up the spoils including the virgin girls (suggesting sex slaves for girls who just witnessed the Israelite SS troops murder their parents and baby brother.) It is horrible. Don't you see the dark immorality there? I did as a child and it led me to reject such an immoral system.

Fiach

Koyaanisqatsi

As always, everyone, please pardon my dyslexia. It's a never ending embarrassment and my spellchecker isn't working (again).

Sorry "the." The war spilled onto my carpet.

THE REST...

Well, not just "wrong," inherent. This fear/love, poison/antidote is embedded into the dogma; indeed, it's the dogma's foundation. It's the entire purpose and modus operandi of the cult mythology, as I feel, I have demonstrated repeatedly.

But that's not necessarily what is being threatened in regard to disbelief. The fear for anyone who does not believe what is being told to them is through god's wrath for disbelief, which is an innovation so far as Judaism was concerned. The Jesus myth says, in essence, that you have to believe that he is the Son of God and be found worthy of him and that all of your love, including, presumably, your love for Yahweh, must be directed only to and therefore through him to get to the "father."

At least, that is the Jesus myth of the synoptics and the most commonly accepted NT (e.g., the NIV or KJV). The Gospel of Thomas and the Gnostic faction depict a very different Jesus myth, who states, in essence, that you don't need anybody as an intermediary between yourself and Yahweh (which is why I suggested luvluv check into Gnosticism), so if we really want to take this back as far as we can, we'd have to go to the controversial "Sayings Gospel Q," where the original Jesus cult is depicted as little more than a reformed Jewish faction that largely existed to preach the removal of outdated dietary and hygiene laws.

The Jesus of "Q1" (to use Burton Mack's designations) is little more than a reformed Rabbi. As memory serves, there is no divinity to the Jesus of Q1 (and Q2; it comes in the Q3 section, argued to be chronological by Mack) and no resurrection myth.

Since we're largely dealing with the more modern Jesus mythology (i.e., the synoptics and Paul), however, the punishment against disbelief is therefore directed more toward the belief in Jesus, than merely belief in a god and there can be only one explanation for such a ludicrous conditional; it's fraudulent. Pure hucksterism and nothing else.

So, if you or luvluv (or anyone, for that matter) wish to go all the way back to the true origins of the Jesus myth, you'll find a somewhat fanatical, radical Jewish Rabbi more intent on restructuring dietary and hygiene laws than any kind of prophecied Messiah.

Ever since it was created. Let's not forget what we're talking about. It was created in order to convert; the motives of which I discussed at length in that thread I posted previously.

I agree, but with a salient revision; the fact that it is misused is the foundation of it. It was concocted, IMO, to be used precisely as it was used; to exploit those feelings we already have (the "we" being, in those days, theists, primarily, of different sects).

In other words, you have actually two Jesus cults; the first one (the "real" one), was probably little more than a radical Jewish faction, like so many other radical Jewish factions at the time and probably existed earlier than is currently estimated, especially in light of the evidence I posted regarding the "christian" power base that had already been established in and around 40 CE; the other (the one we've been discussing), was little more than an exploitation of that original cult's possible notoriety by someone like Paul (and the many "Pauls" that have subsequently shaped the cult, as both mine and fiach's evidence demonstrates).

In other, other words , the mythology that we're talking about was deliberately concocted in order to cause conversion to the cult through exploitation of already existing theologically based fears.

Hence you have the fear of not just your body dying, but also your soul to scare the Hellenized-Jews and Gentiles. It is an a priori doctrine for the purposes of conversion.

But, again, remember, that there would be no need to create an even greater fear of morals than we already have and had through Judaism; the cult the original Jesus cult(s) sought to convert/subvert. It is a primarily Jewish-based mythology that merges Hellenistic/Pagan symbols in an attempt to create an entirely new cult faction (which is precisely what it did do).

The fear of God that is unique to christianity, however, is that this fear (and love) must go through an unquestioned belief in (and allegiance to), Jesus; i.e., the icon of the new cult, under penalty of god's eternal wrath for disbelief.

In this Jesus myth (the Jesus of the synoptics and Paul, specifically) Jesus is meant to replace Yahweh and instill the belief hierarchy that resulted, ultimately, in the catholic cult and its bloody history.

A fine one, except for the fact that you're forgetting Jesus most probably didn't ever say any of those things. Setting aside all of the scholarship on it (like Q and the wisdom sayings, etc.) the parables most christians do actually learn (according to luvluv) come from the accounts of the synoptics; Mark being currently regarded as the first of the three written at or around the Roman/Jewish war (circa 80 CE).

Granting for the sake of argument that the Jesus of the passion narrative mythology died around 33 CE, that would mean that the author of Mark must have kept extremely good transcription notes on ancient papyrus for at least forty to fifty years before writing them all down in the alleged historical document known as "The Gospel of Mark."

Now, again, setting aside current debate, that would mean that "Mark" would have had to have been around twenty years old at the time, let's say, and then saved all of his notes for forty or fifty years for some reason before officially writing them down. This is assuming, of course, that Mark was a first hand witness to everything he writes about; in other words, assuming that the Gospel of Mark is a reliable, historical document and not just a work of deliberately concocted fiction, since, I would further assume that you would never claim to "know Jesus" based on either a work of fiction or a work of third or forth generation recording of nothing more than orally transmitted "history."

Remember what it is you said ("I guess I'm just not persuaded, based on the other things that Jesus [and the NT] reportedly said..."). This necessarily assumes that the NT faithfully reported what Jesus allegedly said, yes?

Well, how could that be unless the "witnesses" of the synoptics were, in fact, witnesses; first hand witnesses; i.e., apostles or at least disciples who were actually there and transcribed (note the distinction) transcribed exactly what Jesus said as he allegedly said it?

Now, I'm 37 years old and I can tell you without exploding this analogy that there is no way in hell I could simply remember exactly what was said by my Dad, for example, on my thirteenth birthday, when I was told the "birds and the bees," an arguably significant enough moment in my life to remember, yes?

I know it's not exactly comparable to meeting the Son of God, but I think you see my point. For those words--written down some forty to fifty years after the fact--to be legitimately considered to be faithful, true retelling of what Jesus allegedly said for you to make your assumption, you would have to either believe that Mark was actually there transcribing the speeches, or accept the apologetics that God spoke through the synoptic authors, yes?

Otherwise, all you're going on is wildly suspect recollections of events that occurred at least forty years prior to them being written down; unless you accept modern scholarship, which shows that the synoptics were based on earlier writings ("Q") from ancient times; writings that do not include anything of the passion narrative and little of Jesus claims to be the Messiah.

This would, in turn, mean that you are basing what Jesus said on authors who took earlier snippets of what the real Jesus allegedly said (the radical Rabbi of "Q") and then made everything else up, either out of whole cloth, or, at best, on anecdotal, cult member recollections from oral history, at least forty years after the fact.

To put that into perspective, that would be like me recreating an historically accurate recreation of everything Marting Luther King, Jr. said and did, based only on surviving witnesses testimony and nothing else.

Would it be close? Sure. Would it be necessarily historically accurate; i.e., a word-for-word transcription of his speeches and a journalistic reconstruction of exactly where he was and what he said? Well, no, since it would be all anecdotal and necessarily so.

Now throw in that you've got at least one book of his wisdom sayings (and, of course, assume there are no films or television records or newspaper clippings or photographs) and what do you have? A biography and by no means an historically accurate transcription of his life and teachings.

So, back Mark. Assuming that Mark actually did ask "witnesses" and had a copy of Jesus' wisdom sayings and grew up around stories of Jesus, can it still be claimed that his writing represents an historically accurate document? Especially in light of the passages where there were no witnesses, such as when Satan tempts him in the desert?

No. At best it would be considered a biography; more likely precisely what it is, a mythology. The problem is, that it isn't presented as such and those caveats that are normally in place when reading a biography are not preached, so even in this best case scenario, there is evidence of fraud deliberately perpetrated.

Yes, it may have been the custom to write in this style, but the point is that it was also customarily understood that the style was more mythological than logical; a salient point that all too often gets lost in discussions of ancient writing sytles, IMO.

What does all this mean? It means that all we have to deconstruct is what we currently have and any speculations based on what one would like Jesus to have said are certainly, personally justifiable, I guess, but in no way scriptural. Either you take the whole as it is and analyze it, or you go all the way back to the original wisdom sayings it is all supposedly based on, and there you find nothing more than a radical Rabbi who had a fixation on the dietary and hygiene laws and little else.

So, the answer to the question of what is a "christian" (or should I now say, what is an "original christian"), is, in essence, a jew who wanted to work on the sabbath.

Not too far away from most W.A.S.P.S.'s, if you ask me .

diersd2d

If you want a real GOD that dies I suggest you try Sol. You see Sol everyday. Sol consumes itself to give all of us LIFE. Sol warms us with heat so we can be warm. Sol gives us light so we can see. Sol is awesome! Can you seriously say that Sol is not more powerful than your Christian god that started out as a storm god, became a national god and now pretends to be a universal god that grants wishes? No! Sol is real. ALL HAIL SOL!

luvluv

Koy:

First of all, let's be clear, I am NOT making a call to authority, I am making a call for EVIDENCE. If you were credentialed enough to make your arguments I would feel compelled to at least take them seriously, though I would still ask you for sources and check them. However, given that you seem not to have substantial historical or theological training, and since your major references are popular histories written for laymen, I ask you for EVIDENCE.

Even if you had referred me to an authority, I would have checked their statements for evidence, as I have done with the Pagels book. (I finished it by the way. Odd that you of all people would reccomend that book to me. She's a lot more positive about Christianity than you are.)

You made the positive claim that Christianity was deliberately constructed in a manner which would out-scare the scare tactics of the various surrounding religions. You haven't offered any proof or evidence for this claim other than it was a logically possible scenario. I grant you that. But why should I believe that it was the ACTUAL scenario? None of the 5 reasons you offer give any evidential support of your specific claim.

Not true. Myths can reveal a deliberate attempt at discovering or revealing a truth. Myths can develop over a period of decades, even centuries, can be the work not of a single individual with a single vision, but the collective work of hundreds of individuals, reflecting the vissicitudes of experience of thousands of people.
As such, a myth can take a form that was never the deliberate intent of any one person or group of persons.

You are assuiming what you have been asked to prove. How do we know that the Christians invented Hell and the tortures thereof wholesale, rather than having inherited the notion of Hell from surrounding religions (as you yourself contradictorally claim later in this same argument). The very Pagels book you reccomended to me makes some mention of the fact that a concept of Hell was emerging among the Jews in the centuries between the writing of the Old and New Testaments. The concept of an afterlife began to emerge partially in response to the argument from evil employed by the Stoics. There were Jewish sects which had a belief in ressurection and an after life BEFORE Jesus: witness the debate between the Saducees and the Pharisees in the gospels.

So given that we have an alternate view of how the doctrine of Hell could have evolved, why should I accept your view that it was a deliberate attempt to cultivate fear?

Well, your quotation from Corinthians 9 is so far out of context and tries to arrive at a conclusion so forced that I am afraid you are in danger of driving me out of this argument. You have to at least have a LITTLE honesty and objectivity in your argument to elicit a response.


As you well know, Pauls statement about becoming a Jew to the Jews is building upon Paul's statement in Chapter 8, in which he was discussing the legality of eating meat offered to idols. Paul states that it is fine to eat meat offered to idols since Christ's sacrifice has made us free in regards to such rituals, BUT he goes on to say that it is not wise to use our freedom unwisely because we might thereby offend those whom we might convert and so we must be careful with how we use our freedom in Christ:

It was THIS stumbling block to which Paul is referring in Chapter 9, not the stumbling block of Christ's sacrifice from Chapter 1 which you (IMHO dishonestly) juxtaposed against Paul's Chapter 9 quote.

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:

It is in this context of subordinating our personal freedom for the well being of others that Paul makes the statement that he will become all things to all men to save some. He makes the statement by PREFACING it not with adjustments he has made to the Christian doctrine, but with personal liberties he has purposely forgone in order not to offend those people who he either intended to convert or those who he was serving in Christ:

Again, this is not a list of DOCTRINES that Paul altered, but a list of personal liberties he surrendered. (He later even said himself that if even HE were to come to his converts and preach to them a different gospel than the one he had already preached, or even if an ANGEL OF HEAVEN were to do so, they should not listen.)

You are not an idiot, and you have a substantial knowledge of the Bible, so I have to assume that you KNOW what I just posted, and that you DELIBERATELY OMITTED IT.

Your contention, therefore, that the above statement suggests that Paul would wilfully change or alter the gospel in order to gain converts is not only incorrect it is DISHONEST.

Your quotation of Thessolonians fairs no better. You are attempting an extraoridinarily strained argument given that one passage. You attempt to establish from a simple statement of fact, the deliberate intent on the part of Paul to sanction reprisals against the Jews. No such reprisals occured during Paul's ministry (that I know of) or on his behalf. One would think that if Paul intended to give sanction to violence against opressors, he was capable of doing so in a much more articulate and impassioned manner, would he not?

I'm afraid, Koy, that at this point you are wasting my time. You are obviously very intelligent and very learned on the Bible, but if you are going to be so deliberately dishonest in your arguments, and take such extraordinary liberties with the meaning and intent of scriptural references, then it is really not worth the time debating you is it?

Therefore, whether or not my debate with you proceeds from this point depends upon your answer to the following question regarding this statement of yours:

Are there any statements from Jesus in the Bible which would seem to suggest that he did not advocate violence? Is there any surrounding context which indicates that when Jesus said he came to bring a sword, that he was not talking about physical violence? Is there any Biblical statement in another Gospel which modifies and extends upon Jesus statement about "hating your brother and mother" (Hint, I believe it's in Luke)? Is there any evidence that Jesus advocated loving one's enemies without reference to a reward in the afterlife? Finally, can you name quote any passages in the New Testament which seem to suppor the notion that Christianity has a basis in love, or that Jesus considered love of God and of one's fellow man to be the ultimate goods?

If you can't at least muster up enough honesty to admit there are LOADS of Biblical passages which contradict your point, then while you are intelligent and informed enough for a good conversation, you clearly aren't objective enough for one.

Completely false. Completely, utterly false.

Further, Paul makes a direct statement that NO ONE, not even angels, can do what you suggest he is doing... change the gospels:

So you have not given any evidence, nor even a plausible scenario which would suggest that Paul advocated changing the gospel message in order to win converts, only that he advocated not offending potential converts. Later in that same passage, as a matter of fact, Paul reveals that he is presenting the Gospel to please God, and not men. He is preaching what he considers to be the truth and refuses to alter it to make it more popular:

He goes on to CRITICIZE Peter (or Cephas) for CHANGING THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE TO APPEAL TO THE JEWS:

Again, proof that Paul DID NOT advocate changing doctrines in order to appeal to converts, he only advocated restraining certain personal liberties so as not to UNNECESSARILY offend potential converts.

This is a far cry from your claim that he would justify ANYTHING to gain converts. And again, I can't shake the notion that you know this, but have neglected to mention it. Why?

Irrelavent. The point is they (the first generation of Christians) were not pursuing conversion on the basis of violent conquest, they were subject to violence.

Again, can you come up with any quotes which might contradict this? If you can, how do you know that these passages are central and not the ones that oppose them? If you can't, then you are either not learned enough to debate with or not honest enough.

Any passages in which Jesus suggests or at least endorse non-violence, rhetorically and in his own actual practice, which did not have with them the promise of eternal reward or a mention of the afterlife at all. If you can name such passages, then why do you say that Jesus "did not preach non-violence"? If not, then again, you are either displaying your dishonesty or your lack of knowledge.

Actually, according to your own Pagels, Jews were usually exempt from that law. But whatever...

That post sets the bar periously low for what constitutes the "thorough destruction" of an argument, but I'll get to that in a subsequent post. I'm actually going to research my response to that one and make it the subject of another thread. (It might be a while, though).

Another difference is that I don't take quotes out of context and try to force meanings on them, as you so evidently did with your massacaring of 1 Corinthians 9. I know we both have biases, but what you did with that passage bordered on the dishonest. I respect your intelligence, but unless you can demonstrate enough objectivity for this to be a meaningful discussion I'm just going to leave this to someone with more patience than myself. I am not interested in having to post the context for passages you deliberately post sans context, particularly when you know that by removing the context and juxtaposing the quote with other quotes taken out of context you are intentionally forcing a meaning which YOU WELL KNOW was not intended. Forcing me to waste my time posting the entire context when the entire time we both know what is really going on. That is not a meaningful use of my time nor yours. It's tiresome for me PRIMARILY BECAUSE it is not necessary. You know everything that I am telling you, you just choose to omit it. So what is the point?

I would love to continue this discussion, but if the objectivity (or at least attempts in that direction) do not increase, I can't see a reason to. With all due respect for your passion, learning, and obvious intellect, your bias makes you a much less worthy opponent than your abilities would otherwise enable you to be. That's a nickle's worth of free advice.