Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jeff Jacobsen, Jan 31, 2014.
Only Canadian religion can be hated
Know what jesus? I love figs AND fags. So there.
CarterUSP do you believe the Bible littarly ?
I appreciate your approach to the question. It's always a difficult one to answer, especially on a forum where any comment I make may well end up being twisted and taken out of context by other observers
I will partially answer by clarifying that: I am in no way superior, morally or otherwise, to anyone of any sexuality. I do not oppose, persecute or ridicule anyone for their sexual preferences. I believe that trying to impose the moral code of a belief system that another person doesn't believe in or follow to be a rather meaningless, potentially abusive thing to do, and I keen to point that out to those who try it. And yes, at the risk of sounding cliched, I do have friends that are gay - friends who may not share my beliefs but are welcome to share my pizza and beer.
That's me, but I am alsoo full of shit.
Did you know Santa Claus or Saint Nicolas lived in the times of the Emperor Constantin who monitored the second concilie and that of the 57 gospels onley 4 made it into the Bible ?
Jesus was an Anon, he my bro
OK, I am a dumbfuck on the bible, but it seems to me in places, Jesus is heralded as the one to free people from the old testament (which had a problem with things like pagan temple prostitution, from what I recall). If Jesus was liberating people from leviticus (Pork, shell fish? ) than the sex should have gone with it, right?Jesus actually does not speak on homosexuality.
And Paul's shit about women should be thrown out too because Jesus said fuck all about that (aside from letting unclean women give him touch-assists).
Jesus is all right by me, but his supporting acts need some work.
There's a lot of weird myths and folk tales about saint nick. I don't find these sufficiently credible to influence my thoughts.
The stories of Constantine putting the BIble together are popular, (often influenced by such poorly researched works of fiction as the da vinci code), but they aren't actually true. The canon of scripture as we know it today was pretty much established over a century before Constantine appeared on the scene (and despite Constantine's wonderful tales of conversion, I find his later actions in sending armies off to kill each cast doubt on how genuine he was). The four gospels were well established over the first couple of centuries.
The other 'gospels' were mainly gnostics, with fairly esoteric tales that contained ideas wildly different to the rest of the established scriptures.
let me help you with that bro
I know your Jesus loves you, CarterUSP. I am sure he loves that you keep looking and learning stuff and that you help people.
If that is true, it is still not accurat, Where is the Gospel of Thomas ? The gospel of Mary of Magdalene ? The gospel of Judas the brother of Jesus (not that other Judas) And the gospel of his mother Mary
Witholds and MUs all over the place
And saint Peter was a dickhead narcisist just like David Miscavige, he did a bang up job of assasinatings Jesus his girlfriend Mary of Magdelene onley because she got more teachings from him than he.
Yup, lots of tales accepted by some, none that have sufficient corroborative historical evidence to convince me. If he really did go around giving gifts to people, then great. It doesn't sway my own faith either way.
His bones are in a grave in Mira Turkey for Xenu's sake !!@!@
darn it for a smart guy you are pretty daft
Have you read any of them? These are books that *claim* to be written by some key biblical figures, yet contain only the kind of standard gnostic teachings that were common throughout that time of history, and bear no similarity to those gospels that were widely accepted by the early church.
1) Some guy's bones are in a grave in Turkey. Carrying bones around that claim to have belonged to some religious figure has been big in catholic circles throughout circles. Are we sure they actually belonged to Nick?
2) I believe that Saint Nick was a real person. I just don't necessarily accept every traditional myth about him
3) Thanks for calling me smart
Okay I have read some of that stuff 18 years ago online and never revisited it
The most deserving targets of mockery are religious hypocrites.
FTR, I wish Obama was an anti-war socialist. Clearly he is not. But I think this sign is accurate in that Jesus would be"nailed to the cross" for being a Commie-Pinko-Marxist today.
Why so much hate,violence,death in religion
You are definitely smart not to ascribe validity to claims of bones being the actual relics of saints. Have you ever seen any of Paul Koudonaris's work?
There are multiple 'duplications' of saints described in his work, with several churches laying claim to having 'the' body or relic or what have you of the same saint. Really fascinating stuff, but the chances of any of those bodies being whom they are claimed to be is pretty slim.
Just googled Paul Koudounaris - interesting stuff.
I always found the fascination with relics to be rather strange, especially for any person or group that claims to be Christian. Bones are bones, no matter who they once belonged to that person is long gone. Making expensive and elaborate tombs and then visiting those tombs on the hope of experiencing some kind of miracle is a very worldly view completely at odds with Biblcal Christianity. I'm more interested in the living.
What you say is partially true. Ignore this post if you're not interested.
The difference is not in the 'physically impossible' or 'ridiculous'. I don't stand over the Bible in judgment, picking and choosing which bits I like or agree with. I believe it is true, but each part needs to be read within its genre. Those parts presented as narrative I take as narrative, those presented as poetry I take as poetic and metaphoric. Like when Jesus tells a parable I believe that he actually told the parable, but the parable itself is a made up tale to illustrate the point. Much of prophecy is presented according to hebrew poetic conventions, so I read them in that way. While debate rages in more liberal circles ro on some details, I think the Bible presents, upon closer reading, which parts are *intended* to be viewed as literal or not.
Being 'physically impossible' has nothing to do with it. There is, whether anyone believes the conclusion or not, internal logical consistency within miraculous acts. *if* God created everything, and *if* Jesus was God come to earth in flesh, then he would have the power and authority to heal, calm storms, walk on water and perform other 'physically impossible' tasks. And if Jesus wasn't capable of doing anything out of the ordinary then he was just a mad teacher or conman who wasn't what he claimed to be.
Or maybe the stories just got better and more elaborate each time they were retold. Maybe Jesus was just a good man whose legend grew as people who believed in magic and miracles kept retelling the tales of the glory days.
I don't have the dox, but I recall learning that the the things told in the bible were not written down and recorded until at least several generations after the fact. The stories my parents told me about their own parents have proven pretty iffy. If what they said was true, I would be the king of England.
Hey I'd be Lizzy Windsor right now if it hadn't been for that pesky Norman Conquest.
It probably is an extension of some pagan practice. IIRC, something similar exists in branches of Tibetan Buddhism where saints and monks (and lucky temple monkeys, one of which I am aquainted with) are preserved after death in similar fashion, only karpalas generally are not just housed, but are often utilitarian in some way, making them slightly different than the passive reliquaries in Europe. AFAIK, no actual properties are ascribed to them (officially) by the monks themselves. They may see it as a use for the body after death and another path of humility and service, but the flock may be eager to ascribe miraculous properties to an object, especially of one revered. I think the Christian relics might have started out the same way, the humility of putting one's dessicated corpse on display as an object lesson (bodily death and decomposition being a meditation many religious orders of the genuine kind often encourage) augmented by superstition of people who don't see the symbolism, but instead ascribe magic to the remains.
Sounds about right. I know there are a lot of practices within the roman catholic church that certainly fit into this category. That's why I'm quick to identify myself as a Bible-believing follower of Jesus. There are lots of weird things going on that label themselves as 'Christian' that I want no part of (though I support each person's freedom to express these beliefs unimpeded).
Maybe so. People are quick to jump on bandwagons and can get caught up in the hysteria of increasingly outlandish anecdotes.
But that doesn't fit other contemporary sources. First century Roman writers, like Tacitus and others whose names currently escape me, corroborate that early followers of Jesus were willing to die for what they believed. The early followers include those who knew him. I think it unlikely for people to be willing to lay down their lives for someone else's exaggerated version of a person that they met and knew.
I think the behaviour of the early followers of Jesus shows that they took what Jesus said seriously.
I like to let other people make their own mind up as to whether we should too.
It is not right that some Christians are very anti-semitic.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!