Spirituality
11 Dec 08
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitlol, very funny, the entire universe in upheaval, 'just ya watch this light saber swing i been practicing!'.
Sigh...how much it would lower the stature of the Sith if GWB was their leader. Just imagine that redneck accent coming from under Sidious' cowl. "I'm the decider!" 😛
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettWould you feel comfortable worshiping in a service led by Bishop Spong (inasmuch as he defines
Christianity is an interesting subject for study, just like Greek, or Norse, mythology are interesting subjects. But it is precisely the centuries of built up mythology that hide the real Jesus from the Christians themselves and which has turned him into a lifeless caricature. It is like an ancient object that has had layer after layer of paint applied to i ...[text shortened]... it looked like originally. You need to strip away that old paint to restore the original finish.
worship)?
Nemesio
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by NemesioHmmm...probably not. I wouldn't mind attending a service just to see what it was like, but I probably wouldn't want to actively join in. Even though I agree with much of what Spong says, I do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions he draws. I don't know how close Spong is to Unitarian Universalism, but I've thought that if I ever felt the need to participate in a religious service, theirs would be the one I'd choose. Being a non-credal religion, their conception of god is quite diverse, with some going so far as to treat god as a metaphor. Spong speaks of god as being a 'non-theistic' god. I'm not exactly sure what he means by that yet, but I'm willing to listen to his case.
Would you feel comfortable worshiping in a service led by Bishop Spong (inasmuch as he defines
worship)?
Nemesio
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJesus died somewhere around the year 30. The earliest books of the bible were written around the year 50. The earliest gospel wasn't written until around the year 70. For the time in between the death of Jesus and writing down of the earliest books of the bible, Christianity existed in an oral format. What Jesus said, or what he supposedly said, was passed around by word of mouth for decades after his death. During that time his message was modified and embellished extensively to suit the needs of wildly diverse christian groups that existed at that time. Plus many books were circulating at that time which did not become canonical, but whose adherents claimed were based on the word of Jesus.
an absolute piece of nonsense, Christianity in the first century of its inception was the most profound and dynamic teaching to have effect, anywhere or ever since. it was not until the third or fourth centuary that its tenets were corrupted and it essentially became a mere formality, that it was alive and dynamic even up until this time cannot be d ...[text shortened]... stianity is probably unrecognisable to first century Christianity, i do not think can be denied.
The changes that were made to christianity after the third century were minor compared the wholesale changes that were wrought in the first. I think Jesus' message was altered almost beyond recognition very shortly after his death, within that oral period of christian history.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettlol, my dear friend, your definition fails to take into account the extensive use made of the Hebrew scriptures in helping others to come to an understanding concerning the Christ. that these were well established and readily available cannot be denied. for example Paul custom was to go to the Jews and reason with them from the scrolls on hand, he would explain and provide reference that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die. where did the references come from? from the Hebrew portions of scripture, plus, many of Paul's own letters were evidently circulated among the congregations in his own time, plus if there was an issue needing clarification it went before the apostles in Jerusalem who acted as a governing body, thus ensuring continuity of thought throughout. so you see, if you actually consider the evidence there is no basis whatsoever other than the fanciful and completely unsubstantiated claims of biblical critics on which to base this assertion that Christs teachings were embellished, on the contrary, many of the accounts that have come down to us this day have a complete lack of any kind of sensationalism and embellishment and are almost matter of fact, the human element having been preserved as a testimony to their truth and actual occurrence.
Jesus died somewhere around the year 30. The earliest books of the bible were written around the year 50. The earliest gospel wasn't written until around the year 70. For the time in between the death of Jesus and writing down of the earliest books of the bible, Christianity existed in an oral format. What Jesus said, or what he supposedly said, was passed ...[text shortened]... beyond recognition very shortly after his death, within that oral period of christian history.
14 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am well aware of how certain early christians hijacked the Jewish tradition and awkwardly tried to shoehorn it into their own mythology. We were left with a Frankenstein of a god whose contradictions are apparent to even the lowest simpleton. A god of "infinite love and mercy" who commits genocide in his spare time. That something was gravely wrong with this tale was apparent even within early christianity. The Marcionites, for example, wanted nothing to do with the Jewish tradition, while some of the earliest Jewish christians (like the Ebionites) wanted nothing to do with Paul.
lol, my dear friend, your definition fails to take into account the extensive use made of the Hebrew scriptures in helping others to come to an understanding concerning the Christ. that these were well established and readily available cannot be denied. for example Paul custom was to go to the Jews and reason with them from the scrolls on hand, he w t, the human element having been preserved as a testimony to their truth and actual occurrence.
I am also aware that Paul's rantings were in circulation during his own time. Galatians is one of the earliest christian writings we have. But it was written about twenty years after Jesus' death by a man who never met Jesus in his life. It is secondhand information at best. None of the books of the bible was written by Jesus or by anyone who knew Jesus personally. They all consist of secondhand information or worse. They all consist of people writing down what others had told them, which had in turn been told to them by yet others, and so on. Not only that, but we do not have any of the originals of these manuscripts. We don't even have copies of them. What we have are copies made from copies, made from copies, made from copies, etc. Of all the biblical manuscripts we have in our possession NO TWO ARE EXACTLY ALIKE. They all have either scribal errors or outright forgeries in them.
Your assertion of apostolic editorship over the bible is a complete myth that was concocted by the winning, orthodox christian sect to give the illusion of continuity from Jesus to the present day. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There wasn't one governing body in Jerusalem adjudicating on doctrinal disputes. There were many christian sects in competition with each other, each with their own writings they considered authoritative. There were the Gnostic Christians, the Marcionite Christians, the Ebionite Christians, and the Proto-orthodox Christians. They each had their own gospels, epistles, apocalypses and letters which they maintained were the word of Jesus. Christianity could have turned out completely differently had one of the other groups triumphed.
It should be apparent to anyone who studies the matter that the chances of your bible being and accurate rendition of Jesus' teachings is very slim at best. The obvious fact that it was clumsily cobbled together over the course of three centuries by human hands should remove both the pretension toward inerrancy and the presumption of divine inspiration. It should also remove any lingering certainty that any of the mythological accretions piled upon Jesus has anything to do with the truth. Only the blindest of blind faiths could still cling to such preposterous myths in the heart of the 21st century.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitoh yeah i remember now.
That was one of the worst lines in the movie. It was George Lucas trying to score a cheap point on Geo. W. Bush.
"if you are not with me you are against me, and i will eat your soul wwaaaarrggghjj"
well we can say the little girl was not a real sith yet, just a rampaging murderer. no finesse whatsoever. the emperor was the real darkie.
14 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettYour assertion that Paul was a "nobody" when it comes to the life of Christ even though he never met him face to face is laughable especially in light of the fact that Paul was a contemporary with the 12 disciples and interacted with them frequently. In addition, he was well versed in the Judaic tradition and could easily have been a rabbi. In fact, he once persecuted Christians until his conversion. So the question is, what made him convert? Was it to face the same persecution he dished out to the Christians? You do realize that he gave his life for his Christian conversion don't you? Not only his life on earth but he was also killed for it.
I am well aware of how certain early christians hijacked the Jewish tradition and awkwardly tried to shoehorn it into their own mythology. We were left with a Frankenstein of a god whose contradictions are apparent to even the lowest simpleton. A god of "infinite love and mercy" who commits genocide in his spare time. That something was gravely wrong with t ind faiths could still cling to such preposterous myths in the heart of the 21st century.
14 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettmay i suggest you actually read the bible and then take out the adjectives in your statement, for you are reminiscent of a rabid animal, frothing at the mouth with all sorts of baseless assertions.
I am well aware of how certain early christians hijacked the Jewish tradition and awkwardly tried to shoehorn it into their own mythology. We were left with a Frankenstein of a god whose contradictions are apparent to even the lowest simpleton. A god of "infinite love and mercy" who commits genocide in his spare time. That something was gravely wrong with t ind faiths could still cling to such preposterous myths in the heart of the 21st century.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy don't you actually attempt to refute his assertions? If they are really so "baseless", that should be very easy for you.
may i suggest you actually read the bible and then take out the adjectives in your statement, for you are reminiscent of a rabid animal, frothing at the mouth with all sorts of baseless assertions.
14 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhere did Wingo say Paul was a "nobody"? Not in that post certainly though you put it in quotes suggesting that you were quoting him. You never seem to tire of such dishonest tactics.
Your assertion that Paul was a "nobody" when it comes to the life of Christ even though he never met him face to face is laughable especially in light of the fact that Paul was a contemporary with the 12 disciples and interacted with them frequently. In addition, he was well versed in the Judaic tradition and could easily have been a rabbi. In fact, he once ...[text shortened]... is Christian conversion don't you? Not only his life on earth but he was also killed for it.
What he did say regarding Paul was:
some of the earliest Jewish christians (like the Ebionites) wanted nothing to do with Paul.
I am also aware that Paul's rantings were in circulation during his own time. Galatians is one of the earliest christian writings we have. But it was written about twenty years after Jesus' death by a man who never met Jesus in his life. It is secondhand information at best.
Dispute the truthfulness of any of that if you can.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe implication was that Paul should not hold any more weight than anyone else. For example, what makes "whodey" any better of a source about Jesus than Paul? After all, whodey is a nobody, right? I am sure you could get behind this assumption. However, lets examine the facts. Since Jesus did not write about himself, the closest picture we have of him are from the original 12. So who has the better insight as to what the original 12 thought and saw? Was it the Ebionites who rejected Paul or was it Paul who was a contemporary of the 12 and who accepted him as one of their own?
Where did Wingo say Paul was a "nobody"? Not in that post certainly though you put it in quotes suggesting that you were quoting him. You never seem to tire of such dishonest tactics.
What he did say regarding Paul was:
some of the earliest Jewish christians (like the Ebionites) wanted nothing to do with Paul.
I am also ...[text shortened]... information at best.
Dispute the truthfulness of any of that if you can.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe facts are the facts. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore the work being done in the field of biblical study, but it will not make your position any more tenable. I am not making "baseless assertions", but am simply commenting on the work being done by a number of biblical scholars, which increasingly call into question your shopworn version of history. Why is it that the most ardent christians are the ones who know the least about the history of their own religion? Maybe if you were to read something OTHER than the bible then you could put your infantile mythology behind you and gain a deeper understanding of who Jesus actually was.
may i suggest you actually read the bible and then take out the adjectives in your statement, for you are reminiscent of a rabid animal, frothing at the mouth with all sorts of baseless assertions.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyFor my money it was the Ebionites. They rejected the mythological tales of Jesus' virgin birth and supposed resurrection. That put them a few steps closer to the real man.
The implication was that Paul should not hold any more weight than anyone else. For example, what makes "whodey" any better of a source about Jesus than Paul? After all, whodey is a nobody, right? I am sure you could get behind this assumption. However, lets examine the facts. Since Jesus did not write about himself, the closest picture we have of him ar ...[text shortened]... Paul or was it Paul who was a contemporary of the 12 and who accepted him as one of their own?