Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Before I counter those arguments, let me ask you why do you think JC _corrected_ the understanding?

On some he was expanding the original teaching of Moses, on some he was correcting.

Example of expanding the original teaching: Don't commit adultry expands to don't lust

Example of correcting the original teaching: love your neighbor and hate your enemy corrected to love everyone. (too bad most Christians do not follow this teaching)

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"Example of correcting the original teaching: love your neighbor and hate your enemy corrected to love everyone. (too bad most Christians do not follow this teaching) "
yes that is too bad. Perhaps thats further evidence that the bible is not very clear in its message. It also contradicst CS Lewis style arguments that we have an innate moral law in us.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"Example of correcting the original teaching: love your neighbor and hate your enemy corrected to love everyone. (too bad most Christians do not follow this teaching) "
yes that is too bad. Perhaps thats further evidence that the bible is not very clear in its message. It also contradicst CS Lewis style arguments that we have an innate moral law in us.

I'm convinced the majority of those who did harm in the name of the Christian faith were motivated by things other than following the teachings of Christ. Their motivation was greed and power. Christianity, or at least the cloak of Christianity, provided a good cover. A cursory look at the actual teachings of Christ would lead people to lead live's of service and peace, not power and conquest.

JC said it best, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" Matthew 7: 21-23

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Perhaps thats further evidence that the bible is not very clear in its message. It also contradicst CS Lewis style arguments that we have an innate moral law in us.

I'll let C.S. Lewis reply to your statement.

"... if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." - from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'll let C.S. Lewis reply to your statement.

"... if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." - from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis: the bloke famous for writing kids books. Oh the irony...

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I'll let C.S. Lewis reply to your statement.

"... if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." - from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis: the bloke famous for writing kids books. Oh the irony...

Oh, there is irony here ...
He was a Fellow and Tutor in English literature at Oxford University until 1954 when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement.

steveOrino

[gontleman 0]

So what about the canaanites and the fact that they were all to be murdered as an order from god himself? For jesus to be so adamant about loving everyone... His dad sure has some homocidal tendencies. Hell... God threw a fit when they didn't slaughter everything as they were told. The commandment says "thou shall not kill" when it should say "thou shall not kill unless i tell you too". and before someone jumps on the notion that god was talking about murder there... Explain to me when committing genocide goes from murder to NOT murder. Ya know... When is it "ok" with god?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

While some taught with the style of Socrates, JC often taught with stories and parables. While it was not unique to him he was obviusly very good at it.

A lot of people do this - even law professors sometime tell stories to explain how specific law was born or is used. However the law is stil written using strict and non-ambiguous (in most cases) languare.

However JC often tells stories instead of telling the people what to do directly, and often refuses to explain what he meant. For example:


Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


So basically Jesus made a strong claim that it is almost impossible (see the comparision with the camel and eye of a needle) for a rich man (funny he didn't mention women) to enter the kingdom of heaven. Does this story help us understand anything? No! There is no definition of "rich man", and comparing to some countries almost everyone in U.S. is rich (and therefore cannot enter the kingdom of God). Is there any explanation why it is difficult? Is there any advice of what should be done? Nope. But what is still here
There was no explanation


Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?


A reasonable question from reasonable people, right?


Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


So Jesus didn't answer their question at all. And his answer is far from even being considered reasonable, and is completely useless - because it is very vague, and does not provide us with any useful information. And yes, he was very good in it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I think he is curious why you use the phrase "I believe" when it looks more apparent there is nothing you "believe" that is not concrete or requires an amount of faith.

Because:
- I do not force everybody (in any way) to be in accordance with my beliefs by doing or not doing something;
- I do not spread my beliefs over everybody in hope somebody picks them too;
- I understand that a few things of those I believe in have no proof, and MAY NOT EXIST, and react appropriately.

If any Christian followed those rules, the life would be much simpler.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So basically Jesus made a strong claim that it is almost impossible (see the comparision with the camel and eye of a needle) for a rich man (funny he didn't mention women) to enter the kingdom of heaven. Does this story help us understand anything? No! There is no definition of "rich man", and comparing to some countries almost everyone in U.S. is rich (and therefore cannot enter the kingdom of God). Is there any explanation why it is difficult? Is there any advice of what should be done? Nope. But what is still here
There was no explanation

JC & his disciple were watching a rich man who put his faith in his wealth. Christ pointed out his wealth was "his" stumbling block, as it was valued more than anything else, including a relationship with God.
JC pointed out the obvious, those who see no need in their life seldom see a need for God.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I think he is curious why you use the phrase "I believe" when it looks more apparent there is nothing you "believe" that is not concrete or requires an amount of faith.

Because:
- I do not force everybody (in any way) to be in accordance with my beliefs by doing or not doing something;

Are you implying I am doing that? Or is Paj forcing his belief?

Quote

- I do not spread my beliefs over everybody in hope somebody picks them too;

Meh, it is hard to spread a lack of belief. I suppose if you had good news you'd just keep ito yourself.

Quote

I understand that a few things of those I believe in have no proof, and MAY NOT EXIST, and react appropriately.

This is were you and I differ. I have no doubts about what I believe.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So Jesus didn't answer their question at all. And his answer is far from even being considered reasonable, and is completely useless - because it is very vague, and does not provide us with any useful information. And yes, he was very good in it

MLK Said he dreamed of every man being judged by his character and not the color of his skin. Some African Americans heard or read that and felt inspired. They were not the second class citizen so many wanted them to believe they were.

Some white men heard that and they felt inspired to activism. They volunteered in the civil rights movement and lobbied to have laws changed.

Other men heard/read MLK's statement and lit crosses and wore hoods. They turned dogs and fire hoses on the marchers. They bombed churches.

Amazing! They all heard the same message but chose to react differently. I guess MLK wasn't that good of a communicator.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,255]

I just thought I'd stop by and say that I have absolutely no idea what you guys have been talking about for at least the last 10 pages.

Seriously, its like watching a game of pong. I can see the little white blob go back and forth but it's impossible to tell what the players are thinking.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

"'m convinced the majority of those who did harm in the name of the Christian faith were motivated by things other than following the teachings of Christ. Their motivation was greed and power. "
Yet again Steve another statement based upon no evidence whatsoever. I'm glad we don't our courts based upon your method of deduction ,is there evidence against the accused? No but be feels guilty, ok send him to the chair.

"A cursory look at the actual teachings of Christ would lead people to lead live's of service and peace, not power and conquest. "
i don't see that. Sure Jesus said some great things, but he also said those that don't follow him will have an eternity in hell. Christians who have fought wars of conquest who have burnt people at the stake, who have oppressed and killed their opponents could easily follow this logic:yes we are creating suffering on earth but we avoid the far greater eternal suffering of hell if we fight for Christianity.

Now i cant get inside peoples heads and neither can you.But to simply assume that the above logic was not considered and to simply assume they were lying to themselves when they fought in the name of the cross is yet again without foundation. You also conveniently ignore all the violent behaviour either done, commanded or condoned by god in the OT. If the Christian bible did not include the OT you may be entitled to do this, but it does. More importantly Jesus and the god of the OT are often assumed to be one and the same, if one agrees with that assumption one must agree that Jesus is a violent and jealous god .
Steve this comment

"... if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." - from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

come on mate, this is beneath you. I made a serious point critiquing Lewis's theology and all you can do is come back with a personal insult, I don't appreciate that, nor do I go to Star Trek conventions as you imply.

Your analogy about Martin Luther King inspiring some to struggle for civil rights and others to dress in white sheets is no way comparable to the confusion caused by Christs vague teachings. The difference if you cant see, and Id be amazed if you really can't , it is that the KKK did not claim to be followers of MLK. On the other hand those that defended slavery claimed to be followers of Christ, they used the bible to defend slavery. Moreover Jesus could presumably see the future, so he would have known his words would have been used to defend slavery and could easily have said "slavery is wrong, period" but he didn't.Jesus could have ensured slavery never happened in Christian countries by uttering a few words but he could not be bothered.

[steveorino 7]

I'm not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose or I'm that bad in my effort to exegete scripture for you.

The point on MLK was not about who was followers or not, but that three groups of people heard/read what he said and found different interpretations in his words. The same applies to ANY teacher, whether that be JC, or Ghandi, or Lincoln. Much of how we interpret what some says is viewed through the lens of our own worldview. If you are Constatine and your worldview is conquest or the Pope from the middle ages and your worldview is power, you read JCs word differently than William Wilburforce who fought to end slavery. Same words. Different world views to begin with.


As for the CS Lewis comment, I thought it was funny, but perhaps it should have been directed at JackC who insinuated the Oxford fellow & tutor was merely a children's book writer. Same with the star trek joke. I forget some people are far more thin skinned than I am. Maybe I have a little thicker skin from being a Texan living on the west coast with all the "where's your horse?" jokes. I'm sorry to offend your sensitivities.

As far as JC & OT that will take more explaining. I may write something before I leave for the DZ, but it could be a while before I reply.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

You also conveniently ignore all the violent behaviour either done, commanded or condoned by god in the OT. If the Christian bible did not include the OT you may be entitled to do this, but it does. More importantly Jesus and the god of the OT are often assumed to be one and the same, if one agrees with that assumption one must agree that Jesus is a violent and jealous god .
.

I’m a firm believer that the biblical writers write to their own generation using their words and idioms. I believe they also write what they believe to be the inspired word of God, but I do not believe God “dictated” it verbatim. The Pentateuch was attributed to Moses and while I doubt he actually penned the words there is liittle doubt it came from an oral tradition that included him as the originator of the words.

I believe much of what we know as the OT was put to pen during the period of Babylonian captivity, which is one reason you see influence from that culture in Hebrew writings. Much of the prophets would have been written after their return to Jerusalem, but not so with the historical books and accounts of the kings.

This led to a little 20/20 hindsight. As Israel came into the promise land they conquered the cities that resided there. Most of the tribes that gave them trouble were tribes that were somewhat related, such as the Edomites were descendants of Esau who sold his birth rite. The Moabites were descendants of Lot, the nephew of Abraham who Abraham should have never let join him in his journey for many reasons.(IMHO) The Canaanites were far more troublesome. Supposedly descendants of Ham, son of Noah, they continually were a thorn in Israel’s flesh. How could a scribe write this without downplaying the power of Yahweh? Simple say the Israelites should have committed genocide in the first place. Since Israel did not commit genocide, as they were commanded, they remained perplexed by the Canaanites. That would make sense to the early Hebrews.

Why did they cast out their foreign wives (& children) when they returned from exile? They needed a excuse for their apostasy. Were their foreign wives the sole reason they turned to idols? I doubt it, but it makes good sense if you are preaching a divine race.

Now this may sound like I do not believe the OT was divinely written. That is partially true. I believe the OT points to Christ in 100s of passages and for that I see divine inspiration. Along with that I see an ancient people telling their story from their viewpoint that included their limited understanding of God. Were they accurate in their portrayal of history? Perhaps not as true historians, but none the less they laid a foundation for Christ and his ultimate teachings.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

I dont agree the equal rights and the KKK interpreted MLk's words differently. I think they both thought MLk was pushing for equal rights for . Its just the KKK didnt like the idea and others did. Thats not the same as interpreting it differently. So again I dont think your analogy works. even if it did work these examples you give are all fallible humans. If jesus message was so important why did it not rise above what fallible humans could acheieve. If jesus message was so important why did he only give surmons in one country? Why not teleport to every country? The whole story is consistent with a fallible human being and not supernatural god.

Ok I didnt think Cs Lewis comments were funny, the irony is they were childish. Not that i dont like CS Lewsi, I loved all the Narnia books despite their Chriistian message. Its ok I have a thick skin in the right context but its hard to get tone on the internet, so one cannot always what is implied in text rather than voice.
Enjoy the DZ its till too cold o jump over here for us fair weather jumpers.

[hairyjuan 0]

as it is in every expose of the lie perpetrated by the proponents of Xtianity, the only thing a believer can do is to continue to live in DENIAL


www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhGQYo4yZs[url]

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

deny it all you want, this is the truth





www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU5X-mYio2s

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[philh 0]

"I'm convinced the majority of those who did harm in the name of the Christian faith were motivated by things other than following the teachings of Christ. Their motivation was greed and power. "

One other point on this issue if religious people fight wars for greed and power then why has there been so much conflict over Isreal? If its all about greed and power then one would expect a distribution of global conflict that is not concentrated around lands considered holy. If it is religiously motivated then one would expect the opposite and gues what thats exactly what we find.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

JC & his disciple were watching a rich man who put his faith in his wealth. Christ pointed out his wealth was "his" stumbling block, as it was valued more than anything else, including a relationship with God. JC pointed out the obvious, those who see no need in their life seldom see a need for God.

Nope. If you want to be so specific, quote the appropriate words:


20 The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


So Jesus just said that you should go and sell what you have, and give it to the poor. He didn't say what you'd like him to say.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Are you implying I am doing that? Or is Paj forcing his belief?

Yes, you do - as you said "Christians have every right to lobby against what they deem as an immoral act."

This basically means that if you consider some act of anyone being immoral according to Christian faith, you'll lobby against it - and this is trying to force others to act according to your RELIGIOUS moral! This will end up that everybody will be forced to study Bible and go to church every Sunday, as not studying Bible and not going to church is immoral act.

Quote

Meh, it is hard to spread a lack of belief. I suppose if you had good news you'd just keep ito yourself.

It is easy to spread news like "your religion is fake". Christians tried it in the past, and even succeed in some places. And it is helpful to remind some people, who asking us why aren't we following the Teaching Of The Good Lord Jesus, that their beliefs are only based on their faith, and might be false.

Quote

This is were you and I differ. I have no doubts about what I believe.

Because you believe, and I think. That's the difference.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Are you implying I am doing that? Or is Paj forcing his belief?

Yes, you do - as you said "Christians have every right to lobby against what they deem as an immoral act."

This basically means that if you consider some act of anyone being immoral according to Christian faith, you'll lobby against it - and this is trying to force others to act according to your RELIGIOUS moral! This will end up that everybody will be forced to study Bible and go to church every Sunday, as not studying Bible and not going to church is immoral act.

Most every law enacted by man was motivated by someone's sense of justice or morality.

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Amazing! They all heard the same message but chose to react differently. I guess MLK wasn't that good of a communicator.

Looks like you assuming here that any reaction following the message is always based on the message content. This is simply not true; there might be reaction based on the message form, or on the messenger itself. And yes, sometime the message formed improperly led to diplomatic conflicts, or even wars. The ambiguity in JC's messages led to development of more than hundred religions based on his words - and any of them could be true just because the words itself were ambiguous.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Most every law enacted by man was motivated by someone's sense of justice or morality.

Yes, in those countries driven by religious nuts.
But the rest of the world, thanks, became a better place now. There is a lot of things which consider immoral which are (and hope will never be) a law - for example, cheating your partner in relationship. But it probably gets those religious nuts crazy when I turn into direction of Mecca while I visit a restroom, and Allah Almighty still let me live.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *