OT: The Theology Thread

[Drunkard]

I'll add that the story of Jesus is not unique whatsoever. As I stated upthread the stories of Horus, Mithra, Krisha, et al share the exact same claims and they all predate the birth of Jesus. Since Tim Chaffey seems to think the earth is only 6000 years old and we lived alongside with dinosaurs at the exact same time he should not be taken seriously whatsoever. I'll take my science lessons from actual scientists who use facts to shape their opinions anyday over Theologians who try to twist the facts to support their belef systems.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Drunkard

[LastPommerFan]

I'll add that the story of Jesus is not unique whatsoever. As I stated upthread the stories of Horus, Mithra, Krisha, et al share the exact same claims and they all predate the birth of Jesus. Since Tim Chaffey seems to think the earth is only 6000 years old and we lived alongside with dinosaurs at the exact same time he should not be taken seriously whatsoever. I'll take my science lessons from actual scientists who use facts to shape their opinions anyday over Theologians who try to twist the facts to support their belef systems.

 

This is not accurate at all, from a theological perspective. All of these were 'gods', fully divine beings. Jesus's unique claim was his humanity, his mortality. Jesus's historicity through third party accounts is also exceptionally unique.

[Drunkard]

This is not accurate at all, from a theological perspective. All of these were 'gods', fully divine beings. Jesus's unique claim was his humanity, his mortality. Jesus's historicity through third party accounts is also exceptionally unique.

You're splitting hairs here. Jesus's claim is being the son of God but also divine. I guess you could argue a half God but that is fairly common place in many of the old religions as well (Zeus had tons of half human children off the top of my head). As a former Roman Catholic and current atheist I shoudn't need to be the one explaining the holy trinity thing but he was supposedly both man and God along with the holy spirit all beig part of it at the same time which was the whole loophole to get around breaking the 1st Commandment.

 

Horus was a God because he was the son of Osiris and Isis, who were aso Gods. I fail to see how that disqualifies him as a comparable to Jesus, especially when they share all of the other greatest hits of being born of a virgin on Dec 25th, being dead for 3 days, rising from the dead, the star in the East, and all that stuff.

[LastPommerFan]

You're splitting hairs here. Jesus's claim is being the son of God but also divine. I guess you could argue a half God but that is fairly common place in many of the old religions as well (Zeus had tons of half human children off the top of my head). As a former Roman Catholic and current atheist I shoudn't need to be the one explaining the holy trinity thing but he was supposedly both man and God along with the holy spirit all beig part of it at the same time which was the whole loophole to get around breaking the 1st Commandment.

 

Horus was a God because he was the son of Osiris and Isis, who were aso Gods. I fail to see how that disqualifies him as a comparable to Jesus, especially when they share all of the other greatest hits of being born of a virgin on Dec 25th, being dead for 3 days, rising from the dead, the star in the East, and all that stuff.

 

Jesus is god incarnate, but his uniqueness lies in his humanity. Horus was not a human. Krishna was not a human. Jesus was fully human. 

 

Your dismissal of the trinity as a loop hole is also incomplete. None of that was necessary to get around the first commandment, because Jesus could have simply modified the first commandment like he did by fulfilling mosaic law. Jesus is god is the Holy Ghost. One being, consubstantial. 

[Drunkard]

Jesus is god incarnate, but his uniqueness lies in his humanity. Horus was not a human. Krishna was not a human. Jesus was fully human.

 

Your dismissal of the trinity as a loop hole is also incomplete. None of that was necessary to get around the first commandment, because Jesus could have simply modified the first commandment like he did by fulfilling mosaic law. Jesus is god is the Holy Ghost. One being, consubstantial.

For not being human Horus sure seemed to have a lot of human things happen to him as did all those other Gods. Who knew Gods needed to be born, baptized, killed and resurrected. To dismiss the similarities of their stories just because one was a God and the other is God in a human form seems a little convenient as well.

 

Also, if the Bible is the word of God and God is infallible how could one of his commandments need to be modified? Wouldn't writing a commandment (the first one no less) that could even possibly need to be modified put his perfection into question? It just doesn't pass the smell test for me and hasn't since I was about 12 or 13.

[LastPommerFan]

For not being human Horus sure seemed to have a lot of human things happen to him as did all those other Gods. Who knew Gods needed to be born, baptized, killed and resurrected. To dismiss the similarities of their stories just because one was a God and the other is God in a human form seems a little convenient as well.

 

Also, if the Bible is the word of God and God is infallible how could one of his commandments need to be modified? Wouldn't writing a commandment (the first one no less) that could even possibly need to be modified put his perfection into question? It just doesn't pass the smell test for me and hasn't since I was about 12 or 13.

 

To the first part, I don't want to dismiss the similarities, I just want to recognize the difference. Jesus's humanity plays a huge role in his message. Humanity is much more than just "human stuff happening to him."

 

To the second part: Times change, humans advance, Jesus's fulfillment of the Mosaic Law is a prime example of God the Father parenting and teaching his children. 

 

(please note, I'm not evangelizing you to believe in God, I'm just presenting a counterargument to the dismissal of his existence. Your mileage may vary.)

[smj]

SMJ, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Matthew 16:17-19.

Sorry I have been away...I don't know what you are wondering about this passage.

I take anything that has been processed by "man" with a grain of salt.  I am reasonably certain of two things:

 

a) Jesus, be he man or son of God, probably did exist around the time that he is believed to have,

b) His message and lessons, whether true and unfiltered or approximate and improved by the writers, are valuable lessons on being a good person.

 

Now, as for who he was, there are four possibilities:

1) He really was the son of God and expected to be considered as such,

2) He was a bit delusional, being just a man, but thinking he was the son of God,

3) He knew he was not and intentionally misrepresented himself, whether for good or bad reasons,

4) He never said that he was the son of God, but a story grew around a popular and charismatic figure with a powerful message.

 

Regardless, of which of those is true, (b) still holds above.  So, I leave to each person to believe which of (1) - (4) is correct, but as Neo, Drunkard, etc, have said, the message, without the assumption of (1), is still worth a lot.

 

I agree with the first three but still can't accept #4.  The evidence is He said He was the Son of God because He was crucified.  All He would have needed to do was deny His divinity and the authorities would not have had a problem with Him.  Also, what motivation did the apostles have for creating a story that wasn't fully true?  It is not like today where any crackpot may expect fame and maybe fortune.  The apostles were persecuted for this "story".  It only makes sense they believed it was true.  And some did not believe like James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul until they saw him resurrected.

 

For people who seem to be atheists or agnostics I find it odd that you are concerned with the message of a good person which is a moral judgment.  If there is no God, or lawgiver, than who is to say what is good anyway?

 

Drunkard - I find it illogical that you won't consider anything Chaffey writes because you do not agree with his beliefs on the age of the earth.  I don't know if I agree with him on that either but it doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.  I am a big Lincoln fan but I don't think he was error free and just because I think he was wrong about a point or two doesn't mean anything else he said was invalid.  It seems like you wouldn't consider the gospel no matter what. 

 

What commandment needed to be changed?

 

There is much misinformation about the life of Jesus being a copy of other ancient figures and stories.  For example, there is no record of Horus being born on Dec 25th.  The reference of birth is day 31 of Khoiak which roughly corresponds to November. But that is irrelevant anyway because the Bible never says Dec 25th is the date of the birth of Christ - that is just the day it is celebrated.  Horus was born to Isis Meri but there is no record tying this to Mary and no reference to a virgin birth.  Supposedly there is a reference to three kings visiting Horus but those originating these false connections to Horus didn't read their Bible very carefully because the Bible says Magi, not kings, visited Jesus and does not say how many.  It is claimed Horus was a teacher at age 12 and baptized by someone named Anup who lost his head but there is no Egyptian record of these details.  While Horus had followers there was no mention of a select group of 12.  Horus had titles like Great God  and Chief of Powers but nothing like Lamb of God of the Light as claimed.  Finally, Horus was not crucified as crucifixion was not invented until a thousand years later and no claim to resurrection.  Do you think Christianity would have ever gained traction if a copy of another story was this obvious?  I get it.  There are people who want so much to disprove the divinity of Christ they will put forth all kinds of these theories but upon examination they just aren't accurate.    

Edited September 2, 2015 by smj

[woods-racer]

SMJ,

 

To further your point and my understanding of the 25th of December. My understanding is it was centuries later that Christmas was celebrated and it was more in response to pagan rituals that evolved around the winter solstice of +/- December 22nd.

 

The true Christian celebration is Easter.

 

It is also my understanding that Jesus was most likely born in the spring. When his birthday is celebrated is not a major factor in the believing's of his teachings. It is of major concern to the retailers of the world.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[LastPommerFan]

Sorry I have been away...I don't know what you are wondering about this passage.

 

Jesus sets up the primacy of Peter and His Church. There is only one church, and right now a guy named Francis sits in Peter's throne. 

 

Did Jesus mean to create all the other factions of christianity? and from whom do they get their authority if Jesus specifically granted the authority to Peter and his church?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Whiskey Bottle of Emotion

[woods-racer]

Jesus sets up the primacy of Peter and His Church. There is only one church, and right now a guy named Francis sits in Peter's thrown. 

 

Did Jesus mean to create all the other factions of christianity? and from whom do they get their authority if Jesus specifically granted the authority to Peter and his church?

 

Sorry, but I have to give an opinion.

 

I regard that passage as Jesus  setting up Simon (Peter is the Greek translation for rock/stone) as the basis or foundation of his church on which to build upon. 

Jesus has just asked   "Who do you say the Son of Man is?"

Simon answers     " You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God"

Jesus at this point has never told or taught that he is the Son of God. But Simon gets it...the foundation to the Church is being put in place.

 

My 2 cents.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[smj]

Sorry, but I have to give an opinion.

 

I regard that passage as Jesus  setting up Simon (Peter is the Greek translation for rock/stone) as the basis or foundation of his church on which to build upon. 

Jesus has just asked   "Who do you say the Son of Man is?"

Simon answers     " You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God"

Jesus at this point has never told or taught that he is the Son of God. But Simon gets it...the foundation to the Church is being put in place.

 

My 2 cents.

I agree.  I don't want to get into debate with my RC friends because I believe the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.  It's a shame the church has been so splintered by men.  But I believe it is quite a leap to propose that because Jesus called Peter the foundation He also put in motion events where each generation would vote on a new "foundation" legacy in the form of the papacy.  I think if Jesus wanted to set up an organization for the ages He would have done so differently and with more deliberate instructions.  Jesus knew He had to trust His followers to build the church but he devoted His teaching to an individual relationship with God through Himself with the help of the Holy Spirit.  Each individual must make their own decision (their family or church cannot do it for them) and I emphasize that individual relationship.  

SMJ,

 

To further your point and my understanding of the 25th of December. My understanding is it was centuries later that Christmas was celebrated and it was more in response to pagan rituals that evolved around the winter solstice of +/- December 22nd.

 

The true Christian celebration is Easter.

 

It is also my understanding that Jesus was most likely born in the spring. When his birthday is celebrated is not a major factor in the believing's of his teachings. It is of major concern to the retailers of the world.

Thank you.  Great points and comment about Easter.  Without Easter everything is meaningless which is why I challenge people to honestly consider that it actually takes more faith the believe the resurrection didn't occur as described in the Bible than to simply accept the Biblical account.

[Drunkard]

For people who seem to be atheists or agnostics I find it odd that you are concerned with the message of a good person which is a moral judgment.  If there is no God, or lawgiver, than who is to say what is good anyway?

 

Drunkard - I find it illogical that you won't consider anything Chaffey writes because you do not agree with his beliefs on the age of the earth.  I don't know if I agree with him on that either but it doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.  I am a big Lincoln fan but I don't think he was error free and just because I think he was wrong about a point or two doesn't mean anything else he said was invalid.  It seems like you wouldn't consider the gospel no matter what. 

 

What commandment needed to be changed?

 

There is much misinformation about the life of Jesus being a copy of other ancient figures and stories.  For example, there is no record of Horus being born on Dec 25th.  The reference of birth is day 31 of Khoiak which roughly corresponds to November. But that is irrelevant anyway because the Bible never says Dec 25th is the date of the birth of Christ - that is just the day it is celebrated.  Horus was born to Isis Meri but there is no record tying this to Mary and no reference to a virgin birth.  Supposedly there is a reference to three kings visiting Horus but those originating these false connections to Horus didn't read their Bible very carefully because the Bible says Magi, not kings, visited Jesus and does not say how many.  It is claimed Horus was a teacher at age 12 and baptized by someone named Anup who lost his head but there is no Egyptian record of these details.  While Horus had followers there was no mention of a select group of 12.  Horus had titles like Great God  and Chief of Powers but nothing like Lamb of God of the Light as claimed.  Finally, Horus was not crucified as crucifixion was not invented until a thousand years later and no claim to resurrection.  Do you think Christianity would have ever gained traction if a copy of another story was this obvious?  I get it.  There are people who want so much to disprove the divinity of Christ they will put forth all kinds of these theories but upon examination they just aren't accurate.    

 

SMJ,

 

In response to your first comment above I find it extremely arrogant that you are implying morality and moral judgments require belief in some sort of higher power. What makes you think believing in an invisible man living in the sky gives you or the deity you believe in any sort of moral authority? The entire concept of the golden rule (treat others the way you would want to be treated) has existed for thousands of years prior to even the earliest religions. I'm not going to rehash the concept of community or tribal order and success through basic cooperation and good works because I did all this in Post #177 of page 5 of this very thread and it can be referenced there. You seem to have either ignored or completely missed it back when I posted it then but it's still there in response to the last time you tried to claim that morality has to come from a higher being. Regardless, the concept of doing the right thing is known by basically everyone regardless of any sort of theological beliefs.

 

To your second comment, it's a perfectly logical reason to discard Tim Chaffey. What better reason to discard the opinions of Tim Chaffey than the fact that he doesn't use logic that is rooted in valid facts in his arguments whatsoever? His entire basis for his argument against an old earth is circular logic stemming from his belief that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so. He uses no empirical data or evidence to support his claims whatsoever and then has the gall to act like he made a solid case. Somebody who does that is not going to expand my learning in any meaningful way, he is merely trying to push his unfounded beliefs on others without having any sort of basis in fact. If you want me to read that drivel take me up on my offer and read something by Richard Dawkins or a real scientist that uses systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, forming a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis, along with the most important part of changing their theories and beliefs based on the results of the facts and data. The reason I trust scientists is because their positions can change when more information, facts, and evidence become available. Religious belief structures don't change because they never use facts or data in their arguments.

 

As for the Commandment needing to be changed it was Whiskey who made the statement that Jesus could simply modify the first commandment like he did by fulfilling mosaic law. This was in response to my comment about how if Jesus is a man (not a God like Horus, Mithra, Krishna, et al) then worshipping him would seem to be breaking the 1st Commandment. It's my opinion that the whole trinity thing was just a loophole made to get around that without changing the Bible since something infallible should never have to be changed. It seems like Jesus shifts from man to God and back to man whenever it's convenient for the debate at the time. Again this just doesn't pass the smell test for me, but to each his own.

 

As for the similarities between all these Gods, different books and different sources offer different pieces of information (just like the Bible before it was consolidated) and I don't have the desire, the time, or the money to learn hieroglyphics and travel to Egypt and do the research myself. Personally it doesn't really matter to me because I think Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Jesus, and the whole lot is all the same nonsense story. I remember reading from several different sources about Osiris (Horus's Dad) losing his genitals and them getting eaten by a catfish in the Nile or some nonsense and some sort of golden got fashioned and given to Isis which impregnated her and so she was able to conceive while being a virgin. Saying all of that I realize it sounds ridiculous on the surface but is it any more ridiculous than talking snakes, living in a great fish, or one family collecting all of the species of the earth and getting them to coexist on a boat for 40 days or however long it was? The point is that its one old ridiculous story that preceded a lot of other ridiculous (and often copycat) stories that came after it. I'm not a Theologian and have no desire to spend my days researching all of these fairy tales. I imagine that many of them have great lessons that can be learned, as long as you don't try to take them literally.

 

I think Christianity owes part of its success to copying and adopting things that were indigenous to the native people they spread their message to. The Christmas tree is a great example, as is having their major holidays (xmas and easter) celebrated at the time of the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox. The story of Horus didn't stop the people of India from coming up with their own version in Krishna and it didn't stop the Persians from coming up with their own version in Mithra, or the Greeks from coming up with Dionysus, so why would it stop the Christians having their version with Jesus? The basic story is not unique whatsoever.

[LastPommerFan]

Drunkard,

 

I see and accept the similarities and appropriations of tradition that were incorporated into Christianity as the religion spread and was assimilated by different cultures. Derision of the old testament stories is ok as well, my faith has not accepted the Old Testament as a literal historical document for more than a millennium, Catholic scientists were on the cutting edge of cosmology, genetics, and even evolution. 

 

Where I think the debate is valuable is around the radically unique teachings of Jesus, from the beatitudes to forgiveness, Jesus was presenting a philosophy that was completely at odds with elements of both eastern and western culture. His ministry was to radically change social order and the relationships between people and the relationship between people and god. In this way, he was significantly different at the very core of his message than the others that you compare him to. 

[Drunkard]

Drunkard,

 

I see and accept the similarities and appropriations of tradition that were incorporated into Christianity as the religion spread and was assimilated by different cultures. Derision of the old testament stories is ok as well, my faith has not accepted the Old Testament as a literal historical document for more than a millennium, Catholic scientists were on the cutting edge of cosmology, genetics, and even evolution. 

 

Where I think the debate is valuable is around the radically unique teachings of Jesus, from the beatitudes to forgiveness, Jesus was presenting a philosophy that was completely at odds with elements of both eastern and western culture. His ministry was to radically change social order and the relationships between people and the relationship between people and god. In this way, he was significantly different at the very core of his message than the others that you compare him to. 

 

Whiskey,

 

Have you studied these other Gods in depth? I've read some basic stuff from various different sources but wouldn't consider myself an expert on any of them, particularly the part about what these guys preached about. Without doing the research it's kind of hard to claim he is significantly different from these other Gods and it seems like the vast majority of people who try to claim how different Jesus was have really only studied him and have little more than a cursory knowledge of the others that they claim are so different from Jesus.

 

 I agree with the sentiment that Jesus presented some great philosophies and had some radically good ideas about how society should function (especially when it comes to helping those that are less fortunate) but that's about as far as I can get before all the other claims start to give me pause.

[LastPommerFan]

I can see the concern over the more fantastical of the biblical stories. I've studied the eastern religions more in depth (Hinduism and Zoroastrianism) so I'm more familiar with them, less so with the Egyptian example.

 

Krishna's primary message was to fulfill your duty, your specific Dharma. Krishna's message was not revolutionary, but rather reinforced the caste system around him. His message preserved the social order, in fact, his messages were mostly about keeping the world running smoothly, without disruption.

[Drunkard]

I can see the concern over the more fantastical of the biblical stories. I've studied the eastern religions more in depth (Hinduism and Zoroastrianism) so I'm more familiar with them, less so with the Egyptian example.

 

Krishna's primary message was to fulfill your duty, your specific Dharma. Krishna's message was not revolutionary, but rather reinforced the caste system around him. His message preserved the social order, in fact, his messages were mostly about keeping the world running smoothly, without disruption.

 

Fair enough. I can posit that Jesus had a unique message without it being proof of his divinity or even his existence. I can also agree that he had a really good message. The part I don't understand is how arguably his biggest supporters (a certain political ideology seems to stake claim to him more than the others) seem to outright ignore his message, yet still claim to be his biggest fans, but that conversation is probably better off in the politics thread. Unfortunately that thread is over run with gun control debates, which is a waste of energy because gun laws don't seem to change no matter which party is in charge.

[smj]

Drunkard,

 

I apologize if I have come off as arrogant or seem to ignore Jesus' message.  I'm not sure exactly what I've written to do so but I suppose that is the nature of discussions like these.  You are obviously intelligent and I don't want to turn you off in any way to further openness to Christ or His message.  

 

I actually view my faith as humble because believing in a all-powerful creator means I need to submit my will to God and be dependent upon His plan for my salvation.  It is really very difficult to even try and conform my will to His.  And obviously I cannot prove my faith because I wasn't there at the cross and after.  But I believe there are evidences and logic that can support faith which is what I have tried to share. 

 

It seems you are a big believer in science which I understand completely.  I just know science changes and I don't trust it to not change and I don't think it has disproven my faith either.  For example, it wasn't long ago when we were building things out of asbestos and were using radium in paint (or lead for that matter). 

 

I think you would identify real well with the apostle Thomas.  When Jesus appeared to Jesus when he was not there he basically said he would not believe Jesus was alive until he saw the nail marks in his hands and touched where the nails were.  When Jesus appeared to Thomas He had Thomas touch His wounds and then said "Because you have seen me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."  Of course I suspect you don't believe that story but I often doubt myself because I cannot see and touch.  It is then I review the logic and evidence, some of which I have presented, and recall this verse.

 

What I find fascinating is that people throughout history and all over the world have even had a need to invent belief systems and gods.  The only explanation I can find that makes sense is that the Bible is accurate when it says God created us with the intention that we would know Him but would have the free will to come to Him or not.  That explains to me why so many people need to believe in something.  And I also wonder why many atheists are so bothered by others being duped into believing in God.  If they don't believe in God why do they care.  I guess I don't share your belief that because there are religious stories of old that are false that it means Christianity is false.

 

As for Chaffey, I agree with you and don't believe the Bible is written to be a science or history book even though it contains science and history.  There are plenty of allegories and parables, etc.  If there is a Heaven I'll have lots of questions to ask when I get there.  I don't think it is important if the world was created in 7 "days" or not. 

 

Finally, I know you didn't agree that moral judgments require belief in some higher power.  But who sets the standards if there is no authority?  You say the concept of right is known by everyone but then what explains the world we live in?  I see very little agreement in what is right and wrong in this world and much conflict.  My point is that without a foundation and believe in live after death I don't understand why anyone would make choices that would not be completely self-centered and pragmatic.  What point would there be in living any other way?  

[Drunkard]

Drunkard,

 

I apologize if I have come off as arrogant or seem to ignore Jesus' message.  I'm not sure exactly what I've written to do so but I suppose that is the nature of discussions like these.  You are obviously intelligent and I don't want to turn you off in any way to further openness to Christ or His message.  

 

I actually view my faith as humble because believing in a all-powerful creator means I need to submit my will to God and be dependent upon His plan for my salvation.  It is really very difficult to even try and conform my will to His.  And obviously I cannot prove my faith because I wasn't there at the cross and after.  But I believe there are evidences and logic that can support faith which is what I have tried to share. 

 

It seems you are a big believer in science which I understand completely.  I just know science changes and I don't trust it to not change and I don't think it has disproven my faith either.  For example, it wasn't long ago when we were building things out of asbestos and were using radium in paint (or lead for that matter). 

 

I think you would identify real well with the apostle Thomas.  When Jesus appeared to Jesus when he was not there he basically said he would not believe Jesus was alive until he saw the nail marks in his hands and touched where the nails were.  When Jesus appeared to Thomas He had Thomas touch His wounds and then said "Because you have seen me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."  Of course I suspect you don't believe that story but I often doubt myself because I cannot see and touch.  It is then I review the logic and evidence, some of which I have presented, and recall this verse.

 

What I find fascinating is that people throughout history and all over the world have even had a need to invent belief systems and gods.  The only explanation I can find that makes sense is that the Bible is accurate when it says God created us with the intention that we would know Him but would have the free will to come to Him or not.  That explains to me why so many people need to believe in something.  And I also wonder why many atheists are so bothered by others being duped into believing in God.  If they don't believe in God why do they care.  I guess I don't share your belief that because there are religious stories of old that are false that it means Christianity is false.

 

As for Chaffey, I agree with you and don't believe the Bible is written to be a science or history book even though it contains science and history.  There are plenty of allegories and parables, etc.  If there is a Heaven I'll have lots of questions to ask when I get there.  I don't think it is important if the world was created in 7 "days" or not. 

 

Finally, I know you didn't agree that moral judgments require belief in some higher power.  But who sets the standards if there is no authority?  You say the concept of right is known by everyone but then what explains the world we live in?  I see very little agreement in what is right and wrong in this world and much conflict.  My point is that without a foundation and believe in live after death I don't understand why anyone would make choices that would not be completely self-centered and pragmatic.  What point would there be in living any other way?

SMJ,

 

I appreciate your statement and am glad that we are able to have a well mannered discussion on the topic. I'll try to answer the questions and respond without hostility while still getting my points across.

 

First off, people having faith in a supreme being doesn't bother me in and of itself. I'm truly happy for you and anyone else who can find solace in religion and can use it as a coping mechanism to alleviate the high stress that befalls the human race from knowing that one day we are all going to die. I don't turn my hose on Christmas carolers or Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who travel door to door, I don't get offended by nativity scenes outside of churches, or scoff when people say God Bless You to someone who sneezes, or when they say Happy Easter or Merry Christmas.

 

Personally I think the fear of death does dupe people into finding religion but I wouldn't care if they kept it to themselves. You seem to be humble which definitely follows along with the teachings of Jesus but not all Christians seem to have that mindset unfortunately and sometimes people use it to behave in a self righteous manner that destroys the environment or discriminates against the rights of others. When those who believe try to force their beliefs on non-believers or even on fellow believers who choose to believe in a different way, then it very much bothers me and I feel like it's my duty to say something and help cast a light on it in order to get public opinion to shift and get things back to the way they should be (separation of church and state). This includes speaking out against the people who protest or bomb abortion clinics and politicians who try to take these services away from women who may need them. I also feel the need to speak out against people who discriminate against homosexuals, and particularly the people who try to pass off their theology as science and attempt to pervert the education system by trying to equate a religious theory like intelligent design and give it equal standing with a scientific theory like evolution. Again, I would be completely fine with ID being taught in a Theology class or some sort of social studies class but not in a science class because ID does not use the scientific method whatsoever.

 

I'm familiar with the apostle Thomas and I was named after him in a round about way (I was named after my Grandmother's Brother who was named after the Apostle). I do affiliate with his skepticism and because I prefer the scientific method of observation, facts, and measuring results it would probably take an appearance from God to change my beliefs.

 

As for morality and standards, I would say that the standards are set by the community that you are speaking about. They tend to differ from region to region and place to place. That's why some tribes practiced cannibalism and others didn't, some shrunk the heads of their enemies and others didn't. Some places treat women with respect and admiration, and others treat them like subservient second class citizens. Some cultures show reverence to tribal elders and some used to send them off on an iceberg. Some groups care for disabled children while others let the ones who weren't healthy die off so they could focus on the healthy ones. I'm not an Anthropologist but all of these examples should pretty much prove that individual groups set their own standards and I'm sure it could be argued that some of these groups made their decisions for religious reasons and some did not. Morality is not dependent on belief in the Supernatural. Societies all have standards for morality whether they have belief in a supernatural or not.

 

I think most concepts of right and wrong stem from the Golden Rule of treating others the way you would want yourself and those you care about to be treated. I think it's a pretty innate concept that existed thousands of years before Moses, Noah, Adam and Eve, or the Judeo-Christian version of God. The old world of tens of thousands of years ago was a rough place and people realized that there was safety in numbers and it that living in a society would be beneficial to us. Living in groups provides safety in numbers, protection from predators, and strength of the group is far greater than the strength of any one individual. This is completely independent of the existence or need for an sort of higher being and many animals including baboons, fish, wolves, lions, gazelle, and elephants live this way without any requirement of belief in the supernatural.

 

Living in a group or society requires a certain code/set of rules that allow groups to function and thrive, otherwise the whole system could fall apart. It doesn't take belief in a deity to realize that I wouldn't want my wife or daughter to get raped and I wouldn't want to see my son get killed, and the majority of the other members in society feel the same way I do about their own families, so everyone agrees to follow the basic code/rules or else risk punishment or banishment from the group.

 

The benefit of remaining a member of the group is likely what motivates people to follow the rules, even if they themselves don't have a wife, daughter, or son that could be harmed. Acting in your own self interests at peril to the group may help an individual in the short term, but it has the potential to harm them over a longer period. Steal the food of your neighbor, or do harm to him or his family and you risk punishment or banishment from the group, and you lose the benefits that come with that. Protection from predators, sharing in the spoils of the hunt, sharing/pooling of resources during lean times, having a chance to learn specialized skills rather than having to be a jack of all trades and do a little bit of everything to survive on your own, having an easier time to find a mate from within other members of the community, and so on.

 

I have stated this whole concept multiple times now and yet you still seem to ask this same question over and over again. If my answer is insufficient for you, I apologize, but it's the best I can do. The standards are set by the group overall or the leader of the group, which explains why there are different standards in different areas. There have pretty much always been standards for every group and there have and will always be people who will break the rules and need to be punished or banished from the group. Personally I think the problems in the world today stem from poverty and greed. Those who have just want more leading to those with little or nothing left to starve or do desperate things. Not to turn this all political but if the Republicans who claim to be such awesome Christians would do what Jesus asked them to do and actually help the poor then maybe poverty and desperation wouldn't be so rampant.

 

As for your statement about people throughout history and all over the world having a need to invent belief systems and Gods causing you to believe that means the Bible is accurate, I find the exact opposite. I think it's an innate coping mechanism that stems from finding a way to deal with the stress that we are all going to die one day. It seems unique to our species that we know each of us is going to die so believing in an afterlife where we can reconnect with lost loved ones and a benevolent creator who makes it all possible is an easy way to allow us to cope with losing loved ones as well as our own eventual demise. I'm not sure how knowing that 40,000 year ago that Neanderthals buried their dead with their tools and possessions makes the statements in a 5,000 year old book true but I'm not trying to convert you so I'll leave it at that.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I am glad to see the great discussion continued after I had to bow out.

 

Very busy these days getting ready to teach 4 new accounting core courses starting after Labour Day, on top of all my other work and family obligations.

 

Carry on.

 

Salam / Peace,

 

NS

[K8prisoner]

wrote a perfect reply and got it wiped out... it was exhausting and took 40 min... its gone.. iwill try againg to write it all as the loving distractions of my life won and killed my thought which was a thank you to you for responding and an idea bout the origin of all of this that i am convinced that  we are all right but it wont let me take the truth and send it as obvious paper.... maybe i am not allowed.... i enjoyed yr response... hopefully it can continue.. if you tell me your questions and reservations then mayne im aloowed to confirm or deny....  

[K8prisoner]

SMJ,

 

In response to your first comment above I find it extremely arrogant that you are implying morality and moral judgments require belief in some sort of higher power. What makes you think believing in an invisible man living in the sky gives you or the deity you believe in any sort of moral authority? The entire concept of the golden rule (treat others the way you would want to be treated) has existed for thousands of years prior to even the earliest religions. I'm not going to rehash the concept of community or tribal order and success through basic cooperation and good works because I did all this in Post #177 of page 5 of this very thread and it can be referenced there. You seem to have either ignored or completely missed it back when I posted it then but it's still there in response to the last time you tried to claim that morality has to come from a higher being. Regardless, the concept of doing the right thing is known by basically everyone regardless of any sort of theological beliefs.

 

To your second comment, it's a perfectly logical reason to discard Tim Chaffey. What better reason to discard the opinions of Tim Chaffey than the fact that he doesn't use logic that is rooted in valid facts in his arguments whatsoever? His entire basis for his argument against an old earth is circular logic stemming from his belief that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so. He uses no empirical data or evidence to support his claims whatsoever and then has the gall to act like he made a solid case. Somebody who does that is not going to expand my learning in any meaningful way, he is merely trying to push his unfounded beliefs on others without having any sort of basis in fact. If you want me to read that drivel take me up on my offer and read something by Richard Dawkins or a real scientist that uses systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, forming a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis, along with the most important part of changing their theories and beliefs based on the results of the facts and data. The reason I trust scientists is because their positions can change when more information, facts, and evidence become available. Religious belief structures don't change because they never use facts or data in their arguments.

 

As for the Commandment needing to be changed it was Whiskey who made the statement that Jesus could simply modify the first commandment like he did by fulfilling mosaic law. This was in response to my comment about how if Jesus is a man (not a God like Horus, Mithra, Krishna, et al) then worshipping him would seem to be breaking the 1st Commandment. It's my opinion that the whole trinity thing was just a loophole made to get around that without changing the Bible since something infallible should never have to be changed. It seems like Jesus shifts from man to God and back to man whenever it's convenient for the debate at the time. Again this just doesn't pass the smell test for me, but to each his own.

 

As for the similarities between all these Gods, different books and different sources offer different pieces of information (just like the Bible before it was consolidated) and I don't have the desire, the time, or the money to learn hieroglyphics and travel to Egypt and do the research myself. Personally it doesn't really matter to me because I think Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Jesus, and the whole lot is all the same nonsense story. I remember reading from several different sources about Osiris (Horus's Dad) losing his genitals and them getting eaten by a catfish in the Nile or some nonsense and some sort of golden ###### got fashioned and given to Isis which impregnated her and so she was able to conceive while being a virgin. Saying all of that I realize it sounds ridiculous on the surface but is it any more ridiculous than talking snakes, living in a great fish, or one family collecting all of the species of the earth and getting them to coexist on a boat for 40 days or however long it was? The point is that its one old ridiculous story that preceded a lot of other ridiculous (and often copycat) stories that came after it. I'm not a Theologian and have no desire to spend my days researching all of these fairy tales. I imagine that many of them have great lessons that can be learned, as long as you don't try to take them literally.

 

I think Christianity owes part of its success to copying and adopting things that were indigenous to the native people they spread their message to. The Christmas tree is a great example, as is having their major holidays (xmas and easter) celebrated at the time of the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox. The story of Horus didn't stop the people of India from coming up with their own version in Krishna and it didn't stop the Persians from coming up with their own version in Mithra, or the Greeks from coming up with Dionysus, so why would it stop the Christians having their version with Jesus? The basic story is not unique whatsoever.

getting closer to sanity..  this step then a believe we are all born with perfect help and we dont need to worship some devil middleman that stole wonderful ideas dictated from a devil false god yje orinal ideas  that created community all based on the golden rule... the catch of all religions stsrting with the most disgusting the talmud which teaches one race should be kings ans all members who arent of that race areactually cattle and  and are owned to serve their masters as designated by a tradable stamp on every birth certificate and ss # that puts human tax value currently traded on the nyse like a bond,   yes you too,  at between 500k to 1.5 million based on yr current goyim bloodline and degree of sephardidic and askanazi bloodline values as well as many others that are considered valuable... check it out yourself.. look at your birth/stock certificate, as a bond that you owe on and payments begin between 16 and 26 depending on the ammount of loan you beg them to allow aproval of that loan that benefits them as few do... look at nose jobs of jewish actressess as they ntry to look like our vision of beuaty toecieve us as is allowed in talmud not the torah and is allowed in Qu'aran as that book much closer resembles the workers bees' false  anti establishment and false anti goverment text which is axtually been corrupted to get one third of the world surrounding a key resource  to submit to the will of the state which was carefully and completely replaced as bthe god away from yours and my true helper and redeemer. ALLAH. pbhn.  the latter grammar was out of respect for you and a state control as the real allah doesnt need your worship , in fact anyone or god who demands worship or supplication , uses phrases like the christian only thru me you are

[Drunkard]

getting closer to sanity.. this step then a believe we are all born with perfect help and we dont need to worship some devil middleman that stole wonderful ideas dictated from a devil false god yje orinal ideas that created community all based on the golden rule... the catch of all religions stsrting with the most disgusting the talmud which teaches one race should be kings ans all members who arent of that race areactually cattle and and are owned to serve their masters as designated by a tradable stamp on every birth certificate and ss # that puts human tax value currently traded on the nyse like a bond, yes you too, at between 500k to 1.5 million based on yr current goyim bloodline and degree of sephardidic and askanazi bloodline values as well as many others that are considered valuable... check it out yourself.. look at your birth/stock certificate, as a bond that you owe on and payments begin between 16 and 26 depending on the ammount of loan you beg them to allow aproval of that loan that benefits them as few do... look at nose jobs of jewish actressess as they ntry to look like our vision of beuaty toecieve us as is allowed in talmud not the torah and is allowed in Qu'aran as that book much closer resembles the workers bees' false anti establishment and false anti goverment text which is axtually been corrupted to get one third of the world surrounding a key resource to submit to the will of the state which was carefully and completely replaced as bthe god away from yours and my true helper and redeemer. ALLAH. pbhn. the latter grammar was out of respect for you and a state control as the real allah doesnt need your worship , in fact anyone or god who demands worship or supplication , uses phrases like the christian only thru me you are

Ok, I read your comment twice to make sure I wasn't having a stroke the first time I read it and I still couldn't comprehend your post at all. Is this Yuri?

[I am Defecting]

Ok, I read your comment twice to make sure I wasn't having a stroke the first time I read it and I still couldn't comprehend your post at all. Is this Yuri?

No. I'm Yuri, and my grammar and punctuation has always been fairly good.

 

Hi Drunkard. I've been enjoying the general conversation in this thread.

I see some similarities to myself in K8's syntax, but the content isn't very Yuri, imo.

[Drunkard]

No. I'm Yuri, and my grammar and punctuation has always been fairly good.

 

Hi Drunkard. I've been enjoying the general conversation in this thread.

I see some similarities to myself in K8's syntax, but the content isn't very Yuri, imo.

Ok, man. Fair enough. That k8 post seemed to have an air of whimsical psychosis in the vein of Hunter S Thompson on an ether or mesculine binge (no offense) so I drew some comparisons that I guess weren't actual parallels. My apologies. Hope you are doing well man. This place is more interesting when you are here for sure.

[K8prisoner]

Ok, man. Fair enough. That k8 post seemed to have an air of whimsical psychosis in the vein of Hunter S Thompson on an ether or mesculine binge (no offense) so I drew some comparisons that I guess weren't actual parallels. My apologies. Hope you are doing well man. This place is more interesting when you are here for sure.

actually your not far off, although its no less true