Religulous

[Dave Lane]

Incredibly awesome movie, took my son, a good friend and myself to see it. It was hilarious laughed till I cried and my religious friend said she would recommend it to anyone and everyone.

Dave

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PHH2JItePlc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PHH2JItePlc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Direckshun]

I saw it, too.

Eh.

[Jenson71]

Tell us about the part with the two Catholic priests.

[Dave Lane]

Both were Vatican priests. Really they were funny as hell with their outlooks. Not strict adherents to orthodox scripture would be accurate.

Dave

[Guru]

I have tired of Maher's shtick.

[jidar]

a movie about religion. The jokes practically write themselves.

[Adept Havelock]

I'll probably catch this over the weekend. Looks like it might be good for a laugh or three.

[Dave Lane]

a movie about religion. The jokes practically write themselves.

Thats the funny part. Maher never adds much commentary he just lets them hang themselves...

[bango]

I can not wait to see this. I am a Christian and I would like to see it and would even like those in my church to see it too. The USA Today review of it said that it was not for the devout. It also said that the director was able to edit it so that Maher does not come off as snide as he often does when discussing religion. He maily goes after those that use their religion for prejudice, discrimination, or a call to arms. I read that it kind of faltered towards the end by becoming preachy. I even agree that the types of people mentioned are worth exposing.

[Taco John]

Organized religion is an impossible farce and always has been. Jesus, in fact, was on a mission to free men from organized religion, and set people on the course of personal religion - that personal religion being the recognition of a Father in Heaven, and thus the recognition of the brootherhood of man. Unfortunately, the message got contorted, and the religion that followed him was a religion about Jesus (the man, the miracle maker, and the messiah), rather than about his teachings (you must be born again unto the spirit as like a child, you must love one another as your Father in Heaven loves you, faith can move mountains).

Organized religion, especially ones that set men as intercessors to God, is destined to fail. Personal religion, however, will grow and grow and grow - and even thrive in this world.

[irishjayhawk]

I can not wait to see this. I am a Christian and I would like to see it and would even like those in my church to see it too. The USA Today review of it said that it was not for the devout. It also said that the director was able to edit it so that Maher does not come off as snide as he often does when discussing religion. He maily goes after those that use their religion for prejudice, discrimination, or a call to arms. I read that it kind of faltered towards the end by becoming preachy. I even agree that the types of people mentioned are worth exposing.

Make no mistake. Maher makes no distinction between extremists and "moderates".

[irishjayhawk]

Organized religion is an impossible farce and always has been. Jesus, in fact, was on a mission to free men from organized religion, and set people on the course of personal religion - that personal religion being the recognition of a Father in Heaven, and thus the recognition of the brootherhood of man. Unfortunately, the message got contorted, and the religion that followed him was a religion about Jesus (the man, the miracle maker, and the messiah), rather than about his teachings (you must be born again unto the spirit as like a child, you must love one another as your Father in Heaven loves you, faith can move mountains).

Organized religion, especially ones that set men as intercessors to God, is destined to fail. Personal religion, however, will grow and grow and grow - and even thrive in this world.

How do you define personal religion?

[bango]

Make no mistake. Maher makes no distinction between extremists and "moderates".

Are all members of a faith lumped together into one category, or is he just talking baout extremeists or...?

[bango]

Organized religion is an impossible farce and always has been. Jesus, in fact, was on a mission to free men from organized religion, and set people on the course of personal religion - that personal religion being the recognition of a Father in Heaven, and thus the recognition of the brootherhood of man. Unfortunately, the message got contorted, and the religion that followed him was a religion about Jesus (the man, the miracle maker, and the messiah), rather than about his teachings (you must be born again unto the spirit as like a child, you must love one another as your Father in Heaven loves you, faith can move mountains).

Organized religion, especially ones that set men as intercessors to God, is destined to fail. Personal religion, however, will grow and grow and grow - and even thrive in this world.

Do you mean that Jesus instilled the New Covenant and did away with the old or...?

[irishjayhawk]

Are all members of a faith lumped together into one category, or is he just talking baout extremeists or...?

I haven't seen the film. It's on my list. I'm just speaking from knowing his thoughts on the matter.

Moderates/Mainstream believers enable extremists. They are no different.

[Taco John]

How do you define personal religion?

Simply put:
Mindfullness of your relationship with God.


Stating it simply, though, is one thing. Living it is a real challenge, because once you accept that you are a child of the Eternal Father, you have to also accept that so is everyone else - whether they are mindful of it or not - and treat them accordingly.

Some people are very good at that part.

[irishjayhawk]

Simply put:
Mindfullness of your relationship with God.


Stating it simply, though, is one thing. Living it is a real challenge, because once you accept that you are a child of the Eternal Father, you have to also accept that so is everyone else - whether they are mindful of it or not - and treat them accordingly.

Some people are very good at that part.

So, in a personal religion does God tell you what and how to feel about certain issues? (like abortion, death penalty, etc)

[bango]

I haven't seen the film. It's on my list. I'm just speaking from knowing his thoughts on the matter.

Moderates/Mainstream believers enable extremists. They are no different.

From what I have gathered over the years of following him is that he was raised Catholic and no longer believes it and puts all people of faith in this category. With certain events that have happened involving Islam over the past several years it has not helped his view. That could be where he is coming from.

[irishjayhawk]

From what I have gathered over the years of following him is that he was raised Catholic and no longer believes it and puts all people of faith in this category. With certain events that have happened involving Islam over the past several years it has not helped his view. That could be where he is coming from.

I assume you object to that view?

[Jenson71]

From what I have gathered over the years of following him is that he was raised Catholic and no longer believes it and puts all people of faith in this category. With certain events that have happened involving Islam over the past several years it has not helped his view. That could be where he is coming from.

After the Iranian revolution, fifty years of a conflicted Israeli statehood, September 11th and a powerful right-wing Christian Coalition in America, it is no surprise there has been a more vocal attack on religion in general.

[irishjayhawk]

After the Iranian revolution, fifty years of a conflicted Israeli statehood, September 11th and a powerful right-wing Christian Coalition in America, it is no surprise there has been a more vocal attack on religion in general.

+ Scientology

[bango]

So, in a personal religion does God tell you what and how to feel about certain issues? (like abortion, death penalty, etc)

It does for me. I am for all life. I will not pick and choose what life I feel is valueable or not. I do not feel that is right for me to do. I do not feel that the death penalty, abortion, or war for that matter are right. I also do not feel that it is my job to have others that are not Christian obey Christian Law. I can not do anything about war or the death penalty, but abortion I can. I will not date a woman that would have an abortion. The only reason for an abortion is if the life of the mother is is jeopardy. A child should not grow up without their mother if it can be helped. If the people want abortion to be legal then they can have it.

[Jenson71]

+ Scientology

Personally, it doesn't seem that Scientology has had much of an impact on people, other than those few that follow it. I could be wrong though.

[irishjayhawk]

Personally, it doesn't seem that Scientology has had much of an impact on people, other than those few that follow it. I could be wrong though.

I was more going with the angle that it has called into question the line between religion and cult.

[Taco John]

Do you mean that Jesus instilled the New Covenant and did away with the old or...?

That's one way to put it - though it's false in itself.

God never required the sacrifice of animals to atone for the sin of Adam. That was all nonsense superstition. Jesus was most definitely here to dissolve that, but that so-called "Old Covenant" was nothing more than Jewish superstition.

Jesus didn't come to "atone for our sins." That was just the interpretation that was sloppily slapped onto it when his Jewish followers were confounded about what it all meant. That's going to shock people, but hear me out. Jesus did have a mission, and it was just as important. (and note: if you want to believe that Jesus came to atone for "our sins" you are welcome to at absolutely no detriment to your soul. But jest remember: God is your Father, not your jailer, prosecutor, or punisher.)

The context that nearly all Christians neglect to grasp in thier views of Jesus Christ is that the Jews were looking for a "Messiah" who would take the Jews from subjugation and put their nation into a position of dominance over the world. They expected a great political, military, and spiritual man wrapped up into one who would return them to material glory. This is why the Jews rejected Jesus - despite who he said he was (and the many miracles he performed in front of them). THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FOR THEIR MESSIAH. (think about that when considering who the so-called "anti-christ" may be)

A lot of people aren't going to accept any of this because they don't believe that the man existed. That's fine. That's their choice. But I do. I believe that there is definitely something to it, though I have my doubts about some of the man-made pollution that has crept into the teachings - and that includes from his own Apostles. What is very clear to anyone who is a student of The Bible is that he is constantly admonishing his own apostles regarding their own misunderstandings of his teachings - and those misunderstandings always come from their pre-disposed misunderstandings of what the Messiah was supposed to do. This is why Jesus says that people "must be born again unto the spirit." He's asking them to put away their pre-conceptions, and enter unto the 'Kingdom' as though they were children." The "Kingdom" he references is here on earth, in the "hearts" of men - where God resides (note, that's not the only place he resides - that's just a place he resides).

The Jews didn't get that, least of all his Jewish apostles. All the way up to the end, His apostles were asking for material favor from Jesus. Imagine, two of his apostles who were brothers came to Jesus asking if they could reign on his left and his right side just before he was crucified (Mark 10:35-38).

God bless them, they came to understand a great deal of his message, and created the most advanced religion on earth (in that it recognizes, above the level of all other religions, that men are brothers and the spiritual sons of the Most High). But, of course, plenty of wicked men got their hands into the honey pot - which should totally be expected. Just like with government, organized religion is always going to be corrupted by organized men.

[Jenson71]

Simply put:
Mindfullness of your relationship with God.

I take from this that one can practice a "personal religion" while still being part of a larger, organized religion? I'm Roman Catholic, yet I believe I concentrate on my own relationship with God.

[Taco John]

So, in a personal religion does God tell you what and how to feel about certain issues? (like abortion, death penalty, etc)

Not exactly.

In fact, God doesn't tell man anything in particular - especially not in words. God works in the spirit. It is up to us to ask ourselves whether or not we are acting within the will of God. And even more challenging, God gives us the freedom to misinterpret it, and then discern from the fall-out whether or not we were right.

In all things, we are belabored to ask ourselves: what are the spiritual fruits of this endeavor. You will know that you are following the will of God by these spiritual fruits.

The idea that God is wrathful is wrong. He's not. Men are just superstitious and need someone to blame for their misfortunes.

[Taco John]

I take from this that one can practice a "personal religion" while still being part of a larger, organized religion? I'm Roman Catholic, yet I believe I concentrate on my own relationship with God.



Absolutely. All religion should eminate from the inside out.

In fact, if you have personal religion, though you don't have to go through the traditionalistic motions that our forefathers have set before us, it likely makes them much more beatiful and meaningful. The problem, however, is when an organized religion gets over-burdened by people who don't understand the concept of personal religion and want to beat you over the head with The Book. This is how religions spiritually die. There are a lot of spiritually dead "religious people" out there who are lost and just going through the motions.

[irishjayhawk]

Not exactly.

In fact, God doesn't tell man anything in particular - especially not in words. God works in the spirit. It is up to us to ask ourselves whether or not we are acting within the will of God. And even more challenging, God gives us the freedom to misinterpret it, and then discern from the fall-out whether or not we were right.

In all things, we are belabored to ask ourselves: what are the spiritual fruits of this endeavor. You will know that you are following the will of God by these spiritual fruits.

The idea that God is wrathful is wrong. He's not. Men are just superstitious and need someone to blame for their misfortunes.

So, in a personal religion, do the ideas of heaven or hell exist?

It seems that all you're doing is rewording what it means to have god speak to you. It's hard to explain what I mean so let me give you an example.

It seems like you are saying God doesn't tell me to believe x, specifically. Instead, he expects you to act in accordance to his will.

Isn't that the same thing? Or can his will be anything YOU want it to?

[Jenson71]

Absolutely. All religion should eminate from the inside out.

In fact, if you have personal religion, though you don't have to go through the traditionalistic motions that our forefathers have set before us, it likely makes them much more beatiful and meaningful. The problem, however, is when an organized religion gets over-burdened by people who don't understand the concept of personal religion and want to beat you over the head with The Book. This is how religions spiritually die. There are a lot of spiritually dead "religious people" out there who are lost and just going through the motions.

I suprisingly agree with you, but only to an extent. There is an important point when we have projected ourselves onto our religion, in effect, shaping it. Xenophanes noticed that the Greek gods his friends all cherished were strangely similar in characteristics and values to...themselves!

There most certainly needs to be a long-lasting structure if a religion is to have any endurance. Wouldn't you agree, and notice your structure is the Bible?

[bango]

That's one way to put it - though it's false in itself.

God never required the sacrifice of animals to atone for the sin of Adam. That was all nonsense superstition. Jesus was most definitely here to dissolve that, but that so-called "Old Covenant" was nothing more than Jewish superstition.

Jesus didn't come to "atone for our sins." That was just the interpretation that was sloppily slapped onto it when his Jewish followers were confounded about what it all meant. That's going to shock people, but hear me out. Jesus did have a mission, and it was just as important. (and note: if you want to believe that Jesus came to atone for "our sins" you are welcome to at absolutely no detriment to your soul. But jest remember: God is your Father, not your jailer, prosecutor, or punisher.)

The context that nearly all Christians neglect to grasp in thier views of Jesus Christ is that the Jews were looking for a "Messiah" who would take the Jews from subjugation and put their nation into a position of dominance over the world. They expected a great political, military, and spiritual man wrapped up into one who would return them to material glory. This is why the Jews rejected Jesus - despite who he said he was (and the many miracles he performed in front of them). THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FOR THEIR MESSIAH. (think about that when considering who the so-called "anti-christ" may be)

A lot of people aren't going to accept any of this because they don't believe that the man existed. That's fine. That's their choice. But I do. I believe that there is definitely something to it, though I have my doubts about some of the man-made pollution that has crept into the teachings - and that includes from his own Apostles. What is very clear to anyone who is a student of The Bible is that he is constantly admonishing his own apostles regarding their own misunderstandings of his teachings - and those misunderstandings always come from their pre-disposed misunderstandings of what the Messiah was supposed to do. This is why Jesus says that people "must be born again unto the spirit." He's asking them to put away their pre-conceptions, and enter unto the 'Kingdom' as though they were children." The "Kingdom" he references is here on earth, in the "hearts" of men - where God resides (note, that's not the only place he resides - that's just a place he resides).

The Jews didn't get that, least of all his Jewish apostles. All the way up to the end, His apostles were asking for material favor from Jesus. Imagine, two of his apostles who were brothers came to Jesus asking if they could reign on his left and his right side just before he was crucified (Mark 10:35-38).

God bless them, they came to understand a great deal of his message, and created the most advanced religion on earth (in that it recognizes, above the level of all other religions, that men are brothers and the spiritual sons of the Most High). But, of course, plenty of wicked men got their hands into the honey pot - which should totally be expected. Just like with government, organized religion is always going to be corrupted by organized men.

You have made many good points. I feel that faith and spirituality is a personal and private matter. I attend church to be with fellow minded people. If Jesus died for the sins of men then he died for the sins of all men not just those who make the choice to follow him. I feel that if there is a heaven and that we would all go. If there is a hell and I believe less in hell than in heaven then it is similar to the Catholic Belief in purgatory. We go to there to pay for our sins that we did not pay for on Earth. Many people can not deal with that. They are not comfortable with the idea of sharing an afterlife with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and so on. I do also feel that man did influence the Bible. They were human and their views did make it into their writtings. Paul is a great example of that. I think that it was insprired by God that they keep a record of what they observed and it was written partly in their eyes with their bias.

[bango]

I assume you object to that view?

I practically shared it for almost the past fifteen years. I started attending church again a few months ago. I can certainly understand where he is coming from and why he feels the way that he does. I do not object to that view I just do not agree with it. He is welcome to it and that is for him.

[bango]

After the Iranian revolution, fifty years of a conflicted Israeli statehood, September 11th and a powerful right-wing Christian Coalition in America, it is no surprise there has been a more vocal attack on religion in general.

Pretty much. The Church has been fairly vocal of how they can feel too. It is unfortunate for us that way.

[Taco John]

So, in a personal religion, do the ideas of heaven or hell exist?

It seems that all you're doing is rewording what it means to have god speak to you. It's hard to explain what I mean so let me give you an example.

It seems like you are saying God doesn't tell me to believe x, specifically. Instead, he expects you to act in accordance to his will.

Isn't that the same thing? Or can his will be anything YOU want it to?


The ideas of Heaven or Hell are inconsequential. What is of consequence is the here and now. Dwelling on ideas of heaven and/or hell is the sure sign of someone who is spiritually deficient. You can't scare people into loving God. Nor should people be concerned with their material ideas of Heaven. So let's put them aside and get to the matter of your question, which is acting in accordance with God's will.

You are right that I said God doesn't tell men what to believe specifically. That's not how He operates. If it was, then The Pope would actually make sense - well, not really, because then He'd be able to do it for all of us, making the Pope unecessary... but at least then a pope would make a little more sense. (sorry Catholics)

But you make a key mistake in phrasing your question when you say "Instead, he expects you to act in accordance to his will." The reality is that when you make the spiritual realization that you are a son of the Most High, you want to act in accordance with His will. It is this choice of want that signifies the very thing that God is after: your faith and love.

[Taco John]

There most certainly needs to be a long-lasting structure if a religion is to have any endurance. Wouldn't you agree, and notice your structure is the Bible?


No I don't agree. And let me clarify: you speak of "a" religion. I speak of "religion." When I speak of religion, I speak of it in singular form - there is only one God, and thus only one religion. To say that you have "religion" is to acknowledge that you are "mindfull of your relationship with God." There can be no different sects of true religion. You either are mindful of your relationship with God, or you're not.

When real religion eventually sweeps the earth - and I have faith that it will, regardless of how it looks now - no structure outside of the most powerful social strucure ever created (the family) will be required to keep it alive. That's not to say that churces will ever go away - they likely wont. Or maybe they will. Who knows? It's just to say that people will someday understand that those buildings and traditions is not where God (or Godliness) eminates from.

[bango]

No I don't agree. And let me clarify: you speak of "a" religion. I speak of "religion." When I speak of religion, I speak of it in singular form - there is only one God, and thus only one religion. To say that you have "religion" is to acknowledge that you are "mindfull of your relationship with God." There can be no different sects of true religion. You either are mindful of your relationship with God, or you're not.

When real religion eventually sweeps the earth - and I have faith that it will, regardless of how it looks now - no structure outside of the most powerful social strucure ever created (the family) will be required to keep it alive. That's not to say that churces will ever go away - they likely wont. Or maybe they will. Who knows? It's just to say that people will someday understand that those buildings and traditions is not where God (or Godliness) eminates from.

So we are not to gather in his name? Are there any other faiths that have had their God sacrifice himself for his followers along with everyone else? Does anyone else think that Jesus was influenced by Greek Philosophy? Does anyone else feel that especially most of the Old Testament was based on actual people and events with some exceptions making it similar to Greek Mythology that way? Does anyone else think that maybe the Bible was written by primative people that even though they were enlightened and advanced that they still used certain things they understood to explain events that they could not?

[irishjayhawk]

The ideas of Heaven or Hell are inconsequential. What is of consequence is the here and now. Dwelling on ideas of heaven and/or hell is the sure sign of someone who is spiritually deficient. You can't scare people into loving God. Nor should people be concerned with their material ideas of Heaven. So let's put them aside and get to the matter of your question, which is acting in accordance with God's will.

You are right that I said God doesn't tell men what to believe specifically. That's not how He operates. If it was, then The Pope would actually make sense - well, not really, because then He'd be able to do it for all of us, making the Pope unecessary... but at least then a pope would make a little more sense. (sorry Catholics)

But you make a key mistake in phrasing your question when you say "Instead, he expects you to act in accordance to his will." The reality is that when you make the spiritual realization that you are a son of the Most High, you want to act in accordance with His will. It is this choice of want that signifies the very thing that God is after: your faith and love.

Wanting to act with his will doesn't answer my main question: how do you know his will?

As it stands, it seems to me you're making as many mental gymnastics moves as an organized religion or even the people that purport to speak to/hear god.

[BigCatDaddy]

Organized religion is an impossible farce and always has been. Jesus, in fact, was on a mission to free men from organized religion, and set people on the course of personal religion - that personal religion being the recognition of a Father in Heaven, and thus the recognition of the brootherhood of man. Unfortunately, the message got contorted, and the religion that followed him was a religion about Jesus (the man, the miracle maker, and the messiah), rather than about his teachings (you must be born again unto the spirit as like a child, you must love one another as your Father in Heaven loves you, faith can move mountains).

Organized religion, especially ones that set men as intercessors to God, is destined to fail. Personal religion, however, will grow and grow and grow - and even thrive in this world.

I agree with some of what you say, but make no mistake about it, Jesus passion is the church. I don't know if you think church = organized religion or not.

[bango]

I agree with some of what you say, but make no mistake about it, Jesus passion is the church. I don't know if you think church = organized religion or not.

That is what you believe. I do have to add that it does say that Christ is married to the Church. I would like to know what TJ's thoughts on that are also.

[Jenson71]

Does anyone else think that Jesus was influenced by Greek Philosophy?

Christian theology is shaped by Greek philosophy, but Jesus "himself" probably was not. When we read The Gospel of John, we recognize just how much Platonic dualism is essential to Christianity. Light and darkness. Good and evil (the world). John was also shaped by the ancient style of writing history or biography. Which is to say that what Jesus says in John is more of an approximation of what Jesus meant according to John than it is of direct quotes from Jesus.

[Taco John]

So we are not to gather in his name?

No one said that.


Are there any other faiths that have had their God sacrifice himself for his followers along with everyone else?

I don't know, but I do know that the idea that God sacrificed himself for his followers is folly. That's the Jewish spin, per Paul, on the brutal slaying of an innocent man who also happened to be God. Jesus knew it was going to happen, but up to the very last moment, he was working on trying to convert their point of view and accept His teachings. Why would he bother to do that if a sacrificial death was the only solution? It's because a sacrificial death wasn't the solution. It was just the result of the rejection of Jesus and his teachings. What followed after that was a lot of PR to take the blame for Jesus's death off of men (particularly the Jewish leadership of the era), and re-frame it as God's will. But Christ's death wasn't God's will. God's will was to give men the choice to either accept or reject Christ's teaching.

[irishjayhawk]

No one said that.




I don't know, but I do know that the idea that God sacrificed himself for his followers is folly. That's the Jewish spin, per Paul, on the brutal slaying of an innocent man who also happened to be God. Jesus knew it was going to happen, but up to the very last moment, he was working on trying to convert their point of view and accept His teachings. Why would he bother to do that if a sacrificial death was the only solution? It's because a sacrificial death wasn't the solution. It was just the result of the rejection of Jesus and his teachings. What followed after that was a lot of PR to take the blame for Jesus's death off of men (particularly the Jewish leadership of the era), and re-frame it as God's will. But Christ's death wasn't God's will. God's will was to give men the choice to either accept or reject Christ's teaching.

And, hence, my note about you performing mental gymnastics.

You are now speaking on behalf of god and telling others what his will is. That's the same thing you've been decrying.

[bango]

No one said that.




I don't know, but I do know that the idea that God sacrificed himself for his followers is folly. That's the Jewish spin, per Paul, on the brutal slaying of an innocent man who also happened to be God. Jesus knew it was going to happen, but up to the very last moment, he was working on trying to convert their point of view and accept His teachings. Why would he bother to do that if a sacrificial death was the only solution? It's because a sacrificial death wasn't the solution. It was just the result of the rejection of Jesus and his teachings. What followed after that was a lot of PR to take the blame for Jesus's death off of men (particularly the Jewish leadership of the era), and re-frame it as God's will. But Christ's death wasn't God's will. God's will was to give men the choice to either accept or reject Christ's teaching.

No one in the Bible or no one at the CP?

[Taco John]

Wanting to act with his will doesn't answer my main question: how do you know his will?

As it stands, it seems to me you're making as many mental gymnastics moves as an organized religion or even the people that purport to speak to/hear god.

I can understand why you would say that. You are a very scientifically-minded person, and spiritual matters seem to you to be nonsensical, irrational - out ot lunch. I'm not trying to dodge your question, but I'm going to have a hard time relating an answer to someone who believes that science can answer everything - and if it can't answer it, then it doesn't exist.

Science cannot test for matters of the spirit. There is no measurement in science to tell you how much joy a person feels. There is no measurement in science to tell you whether love or hate exists. But scientists will accept these as "human emotion," without the ability to pin-point when or where these emotions develop in the evolutionary chain - or why they develop. And these are the easy ones. Concepts such as faith, or gratitude have absolutely no place for discovery in science.

Your main question is how does a person know God's will. The answer to the question has to do with the fruits of your actions. Do your actions show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and/or self-control? If so, then you are walking in the path. If not, then you are not walking in the path.

God's will isn't about God commanding you to do material thing A, then material thing B, followed up by material thing C. God's will is that you find for yourself a purpose in life, and then walk along what is commonly referred to as "the path of righteousness" (meaning the things I just described in the last paragraph). When you do that, his will will unfold in front of you, and you will know that you are following God's will by the spiritual returns that you receive in your life (ie, the return of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. many-fold in your life).

[Taco John]

And, hence, my note about you performing mental gymnastics.

You are now speaking on behalf of god and telling others what his will is. That's the same thing you've been decrying.


On who's behalf am I speaking when I look at a thermometer and tell you what temperature it is?

[Adept Havelock]

On who's behalf am I speaking when I look at a thermometer and tell you what temperature it is?

Your own, or whomever asked you what the temperature is. :shrug:

God as thermometer. :hmmm: That's some interesting theology.

[Taco John]

Your own, or whomever asked you what the temperature is. :shrug:

An interesting answer, but what's the principle behind it? I didn't have any hand in the creation of the thermometer. NOr did the person who asked me. Are you sure you understand the definition of the word "behalf?"


God as thermometer. :hmmm: Interesting theology, that.

So long as you understand that it's one of your creation.

[irishjayhawk]

I can understand why you would say that. You are a very scientifically-minded person, and spiritual matters seem to you to be nonsensical, irrational - out ot lunch. I'm not trying to dodge your question, but I'm going to have a hard time relating an answer to someone who believes that science can answer everything - and if it can't answer it, then it doesn't exist.

There is mistake #1. I have said time and time again, science can be wrong and science may or may not be able to answer everything. I make no qualms about it.

Science cannot test for matters of the spirit. There is no measurement in science to tell you how much joy a person feels. There is no measurement in science to tell you whether love or hate exists. But scientists will accept these as "human emotion," without the ability to pin-point when or where these emotions develop in the evolutionary chain - or why they develop. And these are the easy ones. Concepts such as faith, or gratitude have absolutely no place for discovery in science.

Yes, however, evidence of love and hate can be seen. Embraces or shoves in the back. Smiles and frowns. Evidence adds up and lends credence to one side or another.

Your main question is how does a person know God's will. The answer to the question has to do with the fruits of your actions. Do your actions show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and/or self-control? If so, then you are walking in the path. If not, then you are not walking in the path.

Who are you to know those are the virtues god wants? You are already going outside your personal religion to pick and choose what values you are wanting to espouse.

Suppose god sought people with the exact opposite qualities as those you have listed. How are you to know?


God's will isn't about God commanding you to do material thing A, then material thing B, followed up by material thing C. God's will is that you find for yourself a purpose in life, and then walk along what is commonly referred to as "the path of righteousness" (meaning the things I just described in the last paragraph). When you do that, his will will unfold in front of you, and you will know that you are following God's will by the spiritual returns that you receive in your life (ie, the return of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. many-fold in your life).

You sound an awful lot like Sarah Palin. You dive, duck, dodge and speak so broad that your words could mean anything.

[irishjayhawk]

On who's behalf am I speaking when I look at a thermometer and tell you what temperature it is?

You are speaking on behalf of the weather affecting the temperature, if we go by what you have said previously. (Speaking on behalf of god)

[Adept Havelock]

An interesting answer, but what's the principle behind it? I didn't have any hand in the creation of the thermometer. NOr did the person who asked me. Are you sure you understand the definition of the word "behalf?"

Yes, I believe I have a solid understanding of the word.

From The Oxford English Dictionary Online:

behalf

• noun (in phrase on (US also in) behalf of or on someone’s behalf) 1 in the interests of a person, group, or principle. 2 as a representative of.

What relevance does your creation of the thermometer have with whose behalf you are speaking on?

If you are telling me the temperature the thermometer is reporting, you are speaking on your own behalf, or mine. You are speaking in my interest (answering my query) or your own. Possibly fulfilling some odd desire to proclaim the temperature to the world at large. I suppose you could be speaking as a representative of the thermometer, but that strikes me as rather silly. :shrug:


So long as you understand that it's one of your creation.

I suppose I could see the God as Thermometer concept, as I think they are both creations of my fellow Human Beings. :p

[Taco John]

There is mistake #1. I have said time and time again, science can be wrong and science may or may not be able to answer everything. I make no qualms about it.

Fair enough. It hasn't been my experience with you that you follow-through in practice of this, but I can at least accept that you are an adherent of this belief. That's good enough for me.


Yes, however, evidence of love and hate can be seen. Embraces or shoves in the back. Smiles and frowns. Evidence adds up and lends credence to one side or another.

Indeed. But my point was that you can't measure it. You can only witness their physical manifestations.



Who are you to know those are the virtues god wants? You are already going outside your personal religion to pick and choose what values you are wanting to espouse.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I am not going outside of either personal religion, or Christianity to discern the virtues that encompass God's will. Under no uncertain circumstances is it clear that a major tenet of Christ's teachings, regardless of the apostle or disciple who brought it to us, is that God is love. So far, I have not picked or choosen anything. except to accept this teaching. Deriving the virtues from there is not a matter of picking or choosing, but rather discernment based on that fundamental. There's no picking and choosing involved. Just simple recognition.


Suppose god sought people with the exact opposite qualities as those you have listed. How are you to know?

Because it makes no sense. If you believe in Jesus as a manifestation of God on Earth, the idea that God wants people to live debaucherous lives that are opposite of what He displayed on Earth doesn't follow.


You sound an awful lot like Sarah Palin. You dive, duck, dodge and speak so broad that your words could mean anything.

From my perspective, I neither dove, ducked, nor dodged any question, and have tried in earnest to be patient and specific as possible. I suspect that you're looking for a more material answer than what I can deliver. The only thing that I can do is explain in the best terms possible what I have discerned from my own experience of putting everything that I've learned to the side, becoming as though I were born again (ie. forgetting everything that I've been taught and trusting in God to reveal Himself to me through His spirit), and then walking as best I could in the path - wobbly as I may be.

[Taco John]

Yes, I believe I have a solid understanding of the word.

From The Oxford English Dictionary Online:

behalf

• noun (in phrase on (US also in) behalf of or on someone’s behalf) 1 in the interests of a person, group, or principle. 2 as a representative of.

What relevance does your creation of the thermometer have with whose behalf you are speaking on?

If you are telling me the temperature the thermometer is reporting, you are speaking on your own behalf, or mine. You are speaking in my interest (answering my query) or your own. Possibly fulfilling some odd desire to proclaim the temperature to the world at large. I suppose you could be speaking as a representative of the thermometer, but that strikes me as rather silly. :shrug:



I suppose I could see the God as Thermometer concept, as I think they are both creations of my fellow Human Beings. :p


Irishjay answered the question correctly, but didn't grasp the concept that I was trying to convey with the analogy. The point that I was trying to make is that anyone can determine the will of God simply by looking at the indicators - those indicators being what is referred to as the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience etc.

Once again, the will of God isn't material: do thing A, then do thing B, then do thing C. His will is a spiritual matter, dealing only with matters of spirit. We have our own free will to accomplish thing of material consequence.

[irishjayhawk]

Fair enough. It hasn't been my experience with you that you follow-through in practice of this, but I can at least accept that you are an adherent of this belief. That's good enough for me.

:beers:


Indeed. But my point was that you can't measure it. You can only witness their physical manifestations.

Okay, but I'm not exactly sure why that means they shouldn't be subjected to the same rigorous analysis as every other idea.


I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I am not going outside of either personal religion, or Christianity to discern the virtues that encompass God's will. Under no uncertain circumstances is it clear that a major tenet of Christ's teachings, regardless of the apostle or disciple who brought it to us, is that God is love. So far, I have not picked or choosen anything. except to accept this teaching. Deriving the virtues from there is not a matter of picking or choosing, but rather discernment based on that fundamental. There's no picking and choosing involved. Just simple recognition.

So, essentially, you are going off the Bible? Didn't you say the Bible got it wrong? Didn't you say Paul got it wrong?

It seems you are picking and choosing what parts are wrong and what are right.


Because it makes no sense. If you believe in Jesus as a manifestation of God on Earth, the idea that God wants people to live debaucherous lives that are opposite of what He displayed on Earth doesn't follow.

Yet, you ignore the entire first half of the Bible that you're relying on for the account of Jesus.


From my perspective, I neither dove, ducked, nor dodged any question, and have tried in earnest to be patient and specific as possible. I suspect that you're looking for a more material answer than what I can deliver. The only thing that I can do is explain in the best terms possible what I have discerned from my own experience of putting everything that I've learned to the side, becoming as though I were born again (ie. forgetting everything that I've been taught and trusting in God to reveal Himself to me through His spirit), and then walking as best I could in the path - wobbly as I may be.

Is Jesus the son of God?

[Logical]

What has the world come to TJ, Adept, and Irishjayhawk having a civilized conversation on religion.

[irishjayhawk]

Irishjay answered the question correctly, but didn't grasp the concept that I was trying to convey with the analogy. The point that I was trying to make is that anyone can determine the will of God simply by looking at the indicators - those indicators being what is referred to as the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience etc.

Once again, the will of God isn't material: do thing A, then do thing B, then do thing C. His will is a spiritual matter, dealing only with matters of spirit. We have our own free will to accomplish thing of material consequence.

For someone who is a fan of Ron Paul, especially for the reasoning that we should get back to the constitution as written, you seem to be advocating a very liberal and implied version of theology/the Bible.


EDIT: I felt I should expand. The problem I find in your analogy is that god hasn't given you any indicators, unless, of course, you're going off the Bible. In that case, we get down to what parts. If you aren't going off the Bible, then where is your evidence for Jesus and his teachings. Furthermore, if you aren't going off the Bible, where are you getting the indicators from. Obviously, it would have to be someone because you're espousing a belief on behalf of them.

[Mr Luzcious]

What has the world come to TJ, Adept, and Irishjayhawk having a civilized conversation on religion.

Programmer hasn't gotten involved yet. At least I don't think...

[J Diddy]

Programmer hasn't gotten involved yet. At least I don't think...

he could be the planets version of bush, hes smart enough barely

[Mr Luzcious]

he could be the planets version of bush, hes smart enough barely

His intelligence is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. Its the way he presents himself that I take issue with (and that ruins perfectly civil conversations).

[J Diddy]

His intelligence is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. Its the way he presents himself that I take issue with (and that ruins perfectly civil conversations).


I believe his intelligence (or lack thereof) is what is wrong with how he presents himself

[Mr Luzcious]

I believe his intelligence (or lack thereof) is what is wrong with how he presents himself

Perhaps. I don't think the "why" is really very important in this case though.

[Taco John]

Okay, but I'm not exactly sure why that means they shouldn't be subjected to the same rigorous analysis as every other idea.


I never said that they shouldn't. You are welcome to try. My point is that it will be a fruitless endeavor, as there is no scientific measurement for spirit.



So, essentially, you are going off the Bible? Didn't you say the Bible got it wrong? Didn't you say Paul got it wrong?

I go off whatever resources I can go off. The Bible is one of the best accepted resources on the accounts and teachings of Jesus. That said, I don't accept the farce that the Bible is the literal Word of God. There are too many mistakes in understanding the nature of God for it to be that. I don't believe in such things as "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." I find these concepts to be farcical in that they completely change the nature of God. Instead, what these concepts reveal to me is the nature of man's understanding of God - or misunderstanding, as it were. God never changed. It's man's understanding of God that has changed and evolved over time. God didn't go from demanding the blood of man's perfect beasts to atone for their sins, to demanding the blood of his innocent messenger to atone for them. This is all superstitious nonsense. God's love for us has never changed, despite the plight of men. The fact is that they would blame their plight on the wrath of God, instead of accepting their plight as a derivative of their own actions.


It seems you are picking and choosing what parts are wrong and what are right.

Many spiritually dead Christians would agree with you. They, like you, expect that if you are a follower of Christ, then you must adhere to the Bible to the letter. If this is how they choose to practice their religion, they are welcome to it. But it doesn't matter which author you read, Christ's message is clear: God's "Kingdom" is a spiritual kingdom, not one of books and rote tradition. His is the Kingdom of spiritual discernment - of seeking, and finding. This message is clear no matter which apostle or disciple you read from. I respect that each of them has their own bias on the issues based on their own experiences, but I can't burden myself with their own spiritual shortcomings and misunderstandings. This is the weakness of modern organized religion - they hammer round holes through square pegs, and declare it the truth when the peg gets through the hole.


Yet, you ignore the entire first half of the Bible that you're relying on for the account of Jesus.

Oh, believe me, I ignore no part of the Bible. I am observant of it all. I take it all in as a whole, but I try to understand the biases of the authors in their accounts when reading it - and make rejections in places where I am led to believe that the author is injecting their own biases.

It seems to me that you reject the idea that you can have religion and a discerning mind at the same time. A pity for me.


Is Jesus the son of God?

Of this, I have no doubt.

[Howlin Wolf]

God bless atheism

[Mr Luzcious]

It must be confusing for IJ, talking to so many people with such different concepts of theology. :)

[Mecca]

God bless atheism

Atheism rules!

[Taco John]

For someone who is a fan of Ron Paul, especially for the reasoning that we should get back to the constitution as written, you seem to be advocating a very liberal and implied version of theology/the Bible.


My belief in getting back to the law as is written does not contradict my spiritual leanings in the least. If you want a better perspective on this, I encourage you (and anyone) to read The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. It should be required reading in school. At the very least, every representative of the people should be required to read it. It's a conscise and enlightening theory of the nature of laws and lawlessness that is worth anyone's time who has an active interest in politics.



EDIT: I felt I should expand. The problem I find in your analogy is that god hasn't given you any indicators, unless, of course, you're going off the Bible.

Ah, but he has. But not like you want me to say he has. I don't hear voices in my head - God doesn't talk to men like that. I feel, instead, stirrings in my spirit that I can't rightly describe except to say that they're there, and when I meditate or take the time to stop and "listen with my soul," I can detect them. Your answer to this is likely that it's my own imagination - and fair enough. Like I said, you can't measure spirit. There's no reason for you to believe that anything I say is true, except faith in me that I'm not lying to you, or otherwise trying to decieve you. But even then, I'd encourage you NOT to believe me, and instead experience for yourself.

[Mizzou_8541]

My belief in getting back to the law as is written does not contradict my spiritual leanings in the least. If you want a better perspective on this, I encourage you (and anyone) to read The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. It should be required reading in school. At the very least, every representative of the people should be required to read it. It's a conscise and enlightening theory of the nature of laws and lawlessness that is worth anyone's time who has an active interest in politics.





Ah, but he has. But not like you want me to say he has. I don't hear voices in my head - God doesn't talk to men like that. I feel, instead, stirrings in my spirit that I can't rightly describe except to say that they're there, and when I meditate or take the time to stop and "listen with my soul," I can detect them. Your answer to this is likely that it's my own imagination - and fair enough. Like I said, you can't measure spirit. There's no reason for you to believe that anything I say is true, except faith in me that I'm not lying to you, or otherwise trying to decieve you. But even then, I'd encourage you NOT to believe me, and instead experience for yourself.

Very interesting, TJ. So Jesus is the son of God...but it wasn't God's intention to sacrifice him to take away the guilt of man? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm not arguing or being sarcastic, just looking for clarification.

[Jenson71]

You guys should check out Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's theology, which suggests the Gospels are mostly parables the followers of Jesus told about Jesus - in the similar vein as the parables Jesus himself told.

I don't agree with their theology, but I do agree with their spirit and some of their intention. It's pretty interesting stuff, and it's good, popular reading.

[Taco John]

Very interesting, TJ. So Jesus is the son of God...but it wasn't God's intention to sacrifice him to take away the guilt of man? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm not arguing or being sarcastic, just looking for clarification.


I contend that the "so-called" guilt of man is nothing more than a Jewish superstition. Man is not born with inherent guilt. What if my great, great, etc., grandfather murdered a school teacher. Do I owe atonement for his wrong-doing in the eyes of God? Of course not. I don't believe that we carry the sins of our fathers. We *DO* carry the spiritual fruits of their decisions - just look at what slavery has wrought in our society as an example of that - and it's up to us to work through these issues. But we aren't "born into sin" as the Jewish religion prior to modern Christianity taught us. God never required the slaughter of Animals to quench his thirst for sacrifical blood owed to him thanks to our sinful nature.

And no, God's intention was not to "sacrifice his Son" for this make-believe carryover sin. The fact that the Jewish leaders of the time murdered Jesus, and their Jewish sons of the time (though with good intention) managed to cobble together a theology that somehow made this murder part of some divine plan says more about our ability to fantasize than it does anything about God.

God does not carry a grudge against His creation. His love is pure and true and without pre-condition.

[Mizzou_8541]

I contend that the "so-called" guilt of man is nothing more than a Jewish superstition. Man is not born with inherent guilt. What if my great, great, etc., grandfather murdered a school teacher. Do I owe atonement for his wrong-doing in the eyes of God? Of course not. I don't believe that we carry the sins of our fathers. We *DO* carry the spiritual fruits of their decisions - just look at what slavery has wrought in our society as an example of that - and it's up to us to work through these issues. But we aren't "born into sin" as the Jewish religion prior to modern Christianity taught us. God never required the slaughter of Animals to quench his thirst for sacrifical blood owed to him thanks to our sinful nature.

And no, God's intention was not to "sacrifice his Son" for this make-believe carryover sin. The fact that the Jewish leaders of the time murdered Jesus, and their Jewish sons of the time (though with good intention) managed to cobble together a theology that somehow made this murder part of some divine plan says more about our ability to fantasize than it does anything about God.

God does not carry a grudge against His creation. His love is pure and true and without pre-condition.

So, basically you are saying organized religion is a product of Jewish misinterpetation...or even PR or propaganda, to explain a wide variety of things?

[Taco John]

You guys should check out Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's theology, which suggests the Gospels are mostly parables the followers of Jesus told about Jesus - in the similar vein as the parables Jesus himself told.

I don't agree with their theology, but I do agree with their spirit and some of their intention. It's pretty interesting stuff, and it's good, popular reading.



Marcus Borg sounds interesting and compelling.

John Dominic Crossan believes that Jesus was illiterate. I can hardly take that notion seriously. Jesus, by all accounts, was very well schooled in the Jewish tradition and schools of thought - and showed a studious knowledge of the scriptures. The very little I've read about Crossan's theory, doesn't ring coherent to me.

[Jenson71]

The fact that the Jewish leaders of the time murdered Jesus, and their Jewish sons of the time (though with good intention) managed to cobble together a theology that somehow made this murder part of some divine plan says more about our ability to fantasize than it does anything about God.

Jesus was murdered by the Roman Empire.

Marcus Borg sounds interesting and compelling.

John Dominic Crossan believes that Jesus was illiterate. I can hardly take that notion seriously. Jesus, by all accounts, was very well schooled in the Jewish tradition and schools of thought - and showed a studious knowledge of the scriptures. The very little I've read about Crossan's theory, doesn't ring coherent to me.

I was fortunate to see these two give a series of lectures, mostly focusing on the Christmas story and Jesus' last week, which is the subject of two books they wrote together. Borg is more devotional, but Crossan is more entertaining.

[Taco John]

So, basically you are saying organized religion is a product of Jewish misinterpetation...or even PR or propaganda, to explain a wide variety of things?


This strikes very near to the truth of what I believe. Not perfectly, but very close to it. Organized religion will attract organized men who ultimately take advantage of non-organized men. That's not to say that there aren't pure spirits in religious posts - there certainly are. But if you study the history of the Bible and the organization of The Roman-Catholic church, you can't help but raise a few eyebrows at the "Roman" part of the equation. Heck, pick up your Bible and read Romans Chapter 13 some time... Tell me that there isn't some Roman influence there.

[Taco John]

Jesus was murdered by the Roman Empire.



We can quibble over this, I suppose. But the New Testemant is clear that the Romans wanted nothing to do with this whole ordeal, and passed him from jurisdiction to jurisdiction until Pilot finally caved into the will of the Jews. Pilot even offered that Jesus be set free, but the Jews demanded that Barabas be set free instead - demanding that Jesus be crucified in his place. Pilot went so far as to say "I find no fault with this man." Pilot caved into the will of the Jews because he was a moral coward who didn't want to have a revolt on his hands, but it was Caiaphas the Jewish high priest (along with his followers), who forced the issue and forced Pilot's hand.

But in the end, Jesus was prosecuted on the religious grounds of blasphemy - something that has nothing to do with the Roman government.

[Howlin Wolf]

I have a question. If we all have souls, do monozygotic twins, that is, identical twins, share a soul? I mean, they're born of a single fertilized egg that split and became two people, and seeing that most religious people believe a soul enters at the time of conception, where's the extra soul come from?

[Jenson71]

We can quibble over this, I suppose. But the New Testemant is clear that the Romans wanted nothing to do with this whole ordeal, and passed him from jurisdiction to jurisdiction until Pilot finally caved into the will of the Jews. Pilot even offered that Jesus be set free, but the Jews demanded that Barabas be set free instead - demanding that Jesus be crucified in his place. Pilot went so far as to say "I find no fault with this man." Pilot caved into the will of the Jews because he was a moral coward who didn't want to have a revolt on his hands, but it was Caiaphas the Jewish high priest (along with his followers), who forced the issue and forced Pilot's hand.

But in the end, Jesus was prosecuted on the religious grounds of blasphemy - something that has nothing to do with the Roman government.

Maybe the Bible is wrong.

[Taco John]

I have a question. If we all have souls, do monozygotic twins, that is, identical twins, share a soul? I mean, they're born of a single fertilized egg that split and became two people, and seeing that most religious people believe a soul enters at the time of conception, where's the extra soul come from?


From my perspective, the answer is that souls aren't born of physical matter, but of spirit. If they each have their own self-conciousness, then they each have their own soul.

[Taco John]

Maybe the Bible is wrong.


Perhaps it is. But I've never seen any other explination for why the Romans would want Jesus dead, considering he made no challenge to their political establishment, nor broke any Roman law to speak of.

Unless there is evidence to consider otherwise, I'm willing to give the Bible the benefit of a doubt on this one - especially considering that the writers of these accounts were Jews themselves.

[Taco John]

Perhaps it is. But I've never seen any other explination for why the Romans would want Jesus dead, considering he made no challenge to their political establishment, nor broke any Roman law to speak of.

Unless there is evidence to consider otherwise, I'm willing to give the Bible the benefit of a doubt on this one - especially considering that the writers of these accounts were Jews themselves.


Also, to add to this, it seems to me that adding the touch of "The King of the Jews" as a marker on Jesus's cross was a way for Pilot to poke the Jews in the eye for forcing his hand in this matter. What motivation would he have to be so spiteful otherwise?

[Logical]

Programmer hasn't gotten involved yet. At least I don't think...Good point, probably plotting his revenge from another thread where I neg repped him for his unChristian activities against the posters therein.

[Jenson71]

I have a question. If we all have souls, do monozygotic twins, that is, identical twins, share a soul? I mean, they're born of a single fertilized egg that split and became two people, and seeing that most religious people believe a soul enters at the time of conception, where's the extra soul come from?

Bravo with that question, Howlin Wolf. My answer is that I don't know, and the Catholic Church does not take a particular stand, which can be frustrating at times. I wonder why there could not just be two souls in an embroyo with the intention of identical twins, but I can't get into much detail beyond that.

This guy has some theories:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=16880

[Guru]

We can quibble over this, I suppose. But the New Testemant is clear that the Romans wanted nothing to do with this whole ordeal, and passed him from jurisdiction to jurisdiction until Pilot finally caved into the will of the Jews. Pilot even offered that Jesus be set free, but the Jews demanded that Barabas be set free instead - demanding that Jesus be crucified in his place. Pilot went so far as to say "I find no fault with this man." Pilot caved into the will of the Jews because he was a moral coward who didn't want to have a revolt on his hands, but it was Caiaphas the Jewish high priest (along with his followers), who forced the issue and forced Pilot's hand.

But in the end, Jesus was prosecuted on the religious grounds of blasphemy - something that has nothing to do with the Roman government.

That is the way I have come to understand it as well.

[Jenson71]

Perhaps it is. But I've never seen any other explination for why the Romans would want Jesus dead, considering he made no challenge to their political establishment, nor broke any Roman law to speak of.

Unless there is evidence to consider otherwise, I'm willing to give the Bible the benefit of a doubt on this one - especially considering that the writers of these accounts were Jews themselves.

It is wrong. Roman Crucifixion was a means of punishment for political rebels. The two thieves next to Jesus? They were also rebels, there's a translation problem. The Romans had no problem crucifying some punk who was stirring up the crowds during Passover week.

[Taco John]

It is wrong. Roman Crucifixion was a means of punishment for political rebels. The two thieves next to Jesus? They were also rebels, there's a translation problem. The Romans had no problem crucifying some punk who was stirring up the crowds during Passover week.


You have an interesting theory, but your theory misses the entire storyline of Jesus's life, which is spent doing a lot of running from the Sanhedrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin) (Jewish religious authorities of the time - eventually the Romans ate them up).

But to play with your theory a little - you are basically saying that the Romans decided to hang Jesus on a cross, because he created a great tumult the week before when he rode into town on the back of an ass, no?

So how or why would the Romans find this objectionable? From their perspective, they're seening all of these common Jews getting excited to see the great Jewish teacher that they've heard so much about as he's healing the sick and raising the dead. So now the Romans see this guy riding in on the back of a Donkey, and they decide that this is just too much for them to take? It seems to me they'd laugh at the site of the Jews throwing palms down and singing for the man on the ass. The jokes write themselves.

I think the Bible is on to something when the Apostles and disciples indicate that this symbolism was an affront, instead, to the Jewish religious authorities - and appears to be their last straw in the matter. To them, he would be seen as a political rebel, so calling to "CRUCIFY HIM!" at the top of their lungs, and getting that tumult of people who were just a week ago throwing palms in front of him to go along with it seems to make sense. Otherwise, if the Romans were arbitrarily killing Jesus, the national pride of the common Jew might have caused for a bloody riot.

But the crowds he was stirring up that week was of the Jewish Authority type. He was a champion of the common man at that time. It was the oppressiveness and fear-mongering of their organized religion which took the common man from one extreme to the other - which is the whole narrative that people seem to miss. To go from throwing palms, to calling for crucifixion of an innocent man - with the catalyst being the destruction that Jesus was wreacking on the rote and spiritually dead traditions of the Jewish religion (and the money, and prestige, and venerated benefits that the Jewish authorities were making from it).

He was a rebel alright. But not as a threat to the Romans.

[Jenson71]

Some points I need to make:

1. We recognize that the Jews believed the Messiah would be a warrior-savior. This thought did NOT go unnoticed by Roman authorities.

2. Jesus publicly talked of "the destruction of the temple"

3. Jesus appeared to overturn tables in the temple during his last week.

4. John the Baptist was killed by Herod soon after he challenged Roman authority

5. I'm not saying that Jewish authorities had no part -- but their part does not lie in the execution of Jesus. Their part lies in the turning over of Jesus. Jewish authorities themselves probably could not execute criminals.

6. The people who threw down the palms does not have to be the people who yelled "Crucify him!"

7. Crucifixion IS a Roman form of punishment for those who challenged established Roman authority. That is established fact concluded by historical knowledge.

Okay, so maybe this isn't a coherent argument, but it's late and I have to study.

[Taco John]

Some points I need to make:

1. We recognize that the Jews believed the Messiah would be a warrior-savior. This thought did NOT go unnoticed by Roman authorities.

2. Jesus publicly talked of "the destruction of the temple"

3. Jesus appeared to overturn tables in the temple during his last week.

4. John the Baptist was killed by Herod soon after he challenged Roman authority

5. I'm not saying that Jewish authorities had no part -- but their part does not lie in the execution of Jesus. Their part lies in the turning over of Jesus. Jewish authorities themselves probably could not execute criminals.

6. The people who threw down the palms does not have to be the people who yelled "Crucify him!"

7. Crucifixion IS a Roman form of punishment for those who challenged established Roman authority.


All very good points. But Jesus talking about the destruction of the temple is still a religious affront, thus drawing ire from the religious, not Roman authorities - who surely had also heard that Jesus often taught that His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom - or else they would have apprehended him looooong before that time. There would have been no place for Jesus to hide if the Romans had wanted him killed as a political dissident. And when Jesus was tested on this, his attitude was "render unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar (render unto God that which belongs to God.)" The Romans had no reason to perceive Jesus as a threat, and his decision to ride into Jerusalem (Roman Occupied Territory) on an ass sent a symbolic message that he was harmless to the Romans.

When Jesus overturned the money tables in the Temple, this was not an affront to the Roman authorities. This is an affront to the Jewish religious authorities. Think of it: it's passover week, people are travelling from far and wide bringing their absolute best stock with no blemishes as a sacrifice to atone for their sins. But what about the people in the population centers who don't have stock? Someone has got to sell it to them, and you have to know that the Sanhedrin were getting their cut if this commerce was coming through the temple. What do you suppose the overhead cost on such a transaction might have been with two parties needing to get a cut of the action. It was like a freaking slaughter mall.

"This is supposed to be a house of prayer, but you have made of it a den of thieves."

He cleaned it out! Drove out all the animals, and put an end to the acceptance of the entire act. Within 50 years of this act, the entire practice of sacrificial passover was phased out of the religion (though an interesting note: there are groups of Jewish fundamentalists who have started the practice up again just recently (http://www.sourceflix.com/vid_sacrificev3.html). This was an affront to the Jewish religious authorities.

But you're right that the Jewish authorities couldn't put Jesus to death, as they were an occupied state. They had to appeal to the Romans for this, who quibbled amongst themselves about who had jurisdiction over the matter - a sign that the Romans didn't have any pressing interest in prosecuting Jesus. If Pilot wanted Jesus dead, why ship him to Herod, and then Herod ship him back to Pilot? If the Roman Authorities had wanted Jesus dead, their actions in this exchange is puzzling.

[Jenson71]

Okay, I will only touch on one more thing tonight, later I would like to emphasize how these disturbances were indeed affronts to Roman authorities. But until then:

Are you not cautious when you see that only in the Gospel of Luke is Jesus shipped to Herod? The same Herod who earlier in the Gospel killed John the Baptist?

[Taco John]

Okay, I will only touch on one more thing tonight, later I would like to emphasize how these disturbances were indeed affronts to Roman authorities. But until then:

Are you not cautious when you see that only in the Gospel of Luke is Jesus shipped to Herod? The same Herod who earlier in the Gospel killed John the Baptist?


Cautious of what? I don't understand what you are driving at in this line of questioning. It seems to me that you are being cautious of whose feet to lay the blame for Jesus's death. I'm not sure that I understand the point of it.

But, to respond to your assertion about Herod, even HE didn't want to kill John the Baptist (at least according to Matthew) - though he did apprehend John for admonishing him for his adulterous ways with his brother's wife, Herodias.

Luke 3:19

19 But John found fault with Herod, the ruler of Galilee, because of Herodias. She was the wife of Herod's brother. John also spoke strongly to Herod about all the other evil things he had done. 20 So Herod locked him up in prison. He added this sin to all his others.

Matthew 14:3-8
3 Herod had arrested John. He had tied him up and put him in prison because of Herodias. She was the wife of Herod's brother Philip. 4 John had been saying to Herod, "It is against the Law for you to have her." 5 Herod wanted to kill John. But he was afraid of the people, because they thought John was a prophet.
6 On Herod's birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for Herod and his guests. She pleased Herod very much. 7 So he promised with an oath to give her anything she asked for. 8 Her mother told her what to say. So the girl said to Herod, "Give me the head of John the Baptist on a big plate."

[Jenson71]

Cautious that perhaps it did not happen, that Luke added it for some reason. When most scholars critically examine the Gospels, they will look for the differences found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- the Synoptic Gospels. Why does Luke have something in there about Jesus going to Herod when none of the others had it, not even John? Perhaps Luke wanted to tie this into a more emphasized collaboration between Herod, the Jewish King, and Roman authorities. Perhaps Luke wanted Jesus to meet up with the man who killed John the Baptist. The only other source that has something along these lines is the Gospel of Peter, which has an established bias against the Jews. So when you read in that Gospel how Herod crucified Jesus, not Pilate, there's a charge of biased reporting.

I think it's a historical fact that Herod Antipas killed John the Baptist.

[Taco John]

Cautious that perhaps it did not happen, that Luke added it for some reason. When most scholars critically examine the Gospels, they will look for the differences found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- the Synoptic Gospels. Why does Luke have something in there about Jesus going to Herod when none of the others had it, not even John? Perhaps Luke wanted to tie this into a more emphasized collaboration between Herod, the Jewish King, and Roman authorities. Perhaps Luke wanted Jesus to meet up with the man who killed John the Baptist. The only other source that has something along these lines is the Gospel of Peter, which has an established bias against the Jews. So when you read in that Gospel how Herod crucified Jesus, not Pilate, there's a charge of biased reporting.

I think it's a historical fact that Herod Antipas killed John the Baptist.


A question:

Is there any spiritual value to gain in the discernment of these facts.

[irishjayhawk]

I never said that they shouldn't. You are welcome to try. My point is that it will be a fruitless endeavor, as there is no scientific measurement for spirit.

So how is one supposed to know that said spirit exists? Emotion? Feelings?


I go off whatever resources I can go off. The Bible is one of the best accepted resources on the accounts and teachings of Jesus. That said, I don't accept the farce that the Bible is the literal Word of God. There are too many mistakes in understanding the nature of God for it to be that. I don't believe in such things as "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." I find these concepts to be farcical in that they completely change the nature of God. Instead, what these concepts reveal to me is the nature of man's understanding of God - or misunderstanding, as it were. God never changed. It's man's understanding of God that has changed and evolved over time. God didn't go from demanding the blood of man's perfect beasts to atone for their sins, to demanding the blood of his innocent messenger to atone for them. This is all superstitious nonsense. God's love for us has never changed, despite the plight of men. The fact is that they would blame their plight on the wrath of God, instead of accepting their plight as a derivative of their own actions.

Here's what I'm getting at. If you are going by the Bible, you must take it literally. Reason being is that if you don't how do you decide which parts to take figuratively or which parts to discard.

You're doing that exact thing. You are discarding elements of the source. How do you decide what elements to discard. Obviously, you have to be pulling from something other than the Bible.

A good example of this is that you discard the Old Testament because of it's depiction of god. Yet, you also grant them (writers) truth in their claim Jesus was the son of god. How can you have this disparity?


Many spiritually dead Christians would agree with you. They, like you, expect that if you are a follower of Christ, then you must adhere to the Bible to the letter. If this is how they choose to practice their religion, they are welcome to it. But it doesn't matter which author you read, Christ's message is clear: God's "Kingdom" is a spiritual kingdom, not one of books and rote tradition. His is the Kingdom of spiritual discernment - of seeking, and finding. This message is clear no matter which apostle or disciple you read from. I respect that each of them has their own bias on the issues based on their own experiences, but I can't burden myself with their own spiritual shortcomings and misunderstandings. This is the weakness of modern organized religion - they hammer round holes through square pegs, and declare it the truth when the peg gets through the hole.

This is related to the above response I gave. What I fail to see is how you can write off the writers of the Bible as partaking in "superstition" while simultaneously buying into the notion that Jesus' account is factual and representative.

It really has nothing to do with organized religion other than organized religion does what you are doing on a grander scale.


Oh, believe me, I ignore no part of the Bible. I am observant of it all. I take it all in as a whole, but I try to understand the biases of the authors in their accounts when reading it - and make rejections in places where I am led to believe that the author is injecting their own biases.

I guess you'd have to give me examples because, like I've said, it seems very arbitrary. Moreover, you didn't live during the time of Jesus and are relying on very removed sources, seeing as the gospels weren't written until well after the death of Christ and after the typical lifespan of someone alive during the time of Christ.

It seems to me that you reject the idea that you can have religion and a discerning mind at the same time. A pity for me.

Heavens no. Plenty of people have had "religion" and had a brilliant mind. Of course, most of those who did throughout history were also mindful of the fact that to speak out against any religion would bring death to their doorstep.

Having said that, many people today have brilliant minds and are religious. I think they compartmentalize things, which is a problem, but in their fields, they are very keen. (There was a recent example of a minister being placed as the chairman of a science institute. Obviously, it sounds like a conflict of interest, but he shouldn't be written off immediately.)


Of this, I have no doubt.

Again, how can you be so sure? You've written off exaggerations, misrepresentations and the like with respect to the Bible before. Why is this any different?

It must be confusing for IJ, talking to so many people with such different concepts of theology. :)

There are many different variations of religion. I much prefer personal religion to organized religion, though I wonder if there is much difference between the two; as evidenced by my questioning.

[irishjayhawk]

My belief in getting back to the law as is written does not contradict my spiritual leanings in the least. If you want a better perspective on this, I encourage you (and anyone) to read The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. It should be required reading in school. At the very least, every representative of the people should be required to read it. It's a conscise and enlightening theory of the nature of laws and lawlessness that is worth anyone's time who has an active interest in politics.

I wouldn't say they contradict each other. I'm saying it's interesting that for someone who wants to get back to the constitution in a strict/original sense, you are discarding that methodology with respect to the Bible where you pick and choose, interpret and expand.



Ah, but he has. But not like you want me to say he has. I don't hear voices in my head - God doesn't talk to men like that. I feel, instead, stirrings in my spirit that I can't rightly describe except to say that they're there, and when I meditate or take the time to stop and "listen with my soul," I can detect them. Your answer to this is likely that it's my own imagination - and fair enough. Like I said, you can't measure spirit. There's no reason for you to believe that anything I say is true, except faith in me that I'm not lying to you, or otherwise trying to decieve you. But even then, I'd encourage you NOT to believe me, and instead experience for yourself.

I just fail to see the distinction you are making. He doesn't communicate to you but he does. It just seems like you're making a really simple concept: god either communicates to you or he doesn't; and making it very, very complicated with the amount of words you surround it. For example, god doesn't talk literally, he just expects me to listen with my soul so I can detect them. I don't see the difference with respect to the outcome.



I contend that the "so-called" guilt of man is nothing more than a Jewish superstition. Man is not born with inherent guilt. What if my great, great, etc., grandfather murdered a school teacher. Do I owe atonement for his wrong-doing in the eyes of God? Of course not. I don't believe that we carry the sins of our fathers. We *DO* carry the spiritual fruits of their decisions - just look at what slavery has wrought in our society as an example of that - and it's up to us to work through these issues. But we aren't "born into sin" as the Jewish religion prior to modern Christianity taught us. God never required the slaughter of Animals to quench his thirst for sacrifical blood owed to him thanks to our sinful nature.

And no, God's intention was not to "sacrifice his Son" for this make-believe carryover sin. The fact that the Jewish leaders of the time murdered Jesus, and their Jewish sons of the time (though with good intention) managed to cobble together a theology that somehow made this murder part of some divine plan says more about our ability to fantasize than it does anything about God.

God does not carry a grudge against His creation. His love is pure and true and without pre-condition.

If this is what you believe, what the hell was the point of Jesus?

Also, on a related note, how do you reconcile Jesus being fully human and fully divine?

Jesus was murdered by the Roman Empire.



I was fortunate to see these two give a series of lectures, mostly focusing on the Christmas story and Jesus' last week, which is the subject of two books they wrote together. Borg is more devotional, but Crossan is more entertaining.

How can you make such a claim? It's clear in the Bible that the Romans wanted nothing of him. Hence, Pilate put it up for vote. I very much doubt that the Romans would put up every persecution to a vote.

I have a question. If we all have souls, do monozygotic twins, that is, identical twins, share a soul? I mean, they're born of a single fertilized egg that split and became two people, and seeing that most religious people believe a soul enters at the time of conception, where's the extra soul come from?

Very interesting and astute question, although, I'm still left wanting a definition of "soul". Is it consciousness? Is it emotion?

[irishjayhawk]

It is wrong. Roman Crucifixion was a means of punishment for political rebels. The two thieves next to Jesus? They were also rebels, there's a translation problem. The Romans had no problem crucifying some punk who was stirring up the crowds during Passover week.

How can you point to this being a translation problem, yet, the virgin birth is a known mistranslation between "virgin" and "young woman".

[Taco John]

I wouldn't say they contradict each other. I'm saying it's interesting that for someone who wants to get back to the constitution in a strict/original sense, you are discarding that methodology with respect to the Bible where you pick and choose, interpret and expand.

It's odd to me that you'd blink at this. The Bible is a book written by several authors, translated and re-translated several times. It's not a social contract - it's an account of happenings, and teachings made by men writing from different perspectives and biases.

The Constitution is a contract with the American people.

Why in the world would I treat the two the same?



I just fail to see the distinction you are making. He doesn't communicate to you but he does. It just seems like you're making a really simple concept: god either communicates to you or he doesn't; and making it very, very complicated with the amount of words you surround it. For example, god doesn't talk literally, he just expects me to listen with my soul so I can detect them. I don't see the difference with respect to the outcome.

You wouldn't. I see no reason for anyone trying to examine what I'm saying from a scientific perspective to understand. The only thing I can tell you is that not all communication is verbal. If someone starts blathering telling you God is talking to them, and giving you words, that person is lying. It won't be long before they're asking for money. This is not how God talks to men. He doesn't form words, but instead stirs mens souls. That's the best way I can describe it.


If this is what you believe, what the hell was the point of Jesus?

To free men from the spiritual bondage that they are in, and have been in by the spiritually empty material religions that required such things as slaughtering of animals to atone for ancestral sin. To experience His creation first hand, in order to understand the challenges His creation faces. To deliver men into the spiritual freedom that frees them from the material problems of the world through the mechanism of faith.


Also, on a related note, how do you reconcile Jesus being fully human and fully divine?

What's to reconcile? The man was physical, but contained the consciousness of The Creator - though by all appearances, His memory was that of an infant, initially without knowledge of his divine nature. It appears that it wasn't until his baptism that he became aware of his divine nature.



I'm still left wanting a definition of "soul". Is it consciousness? Is it emotion?

As far as I'm concerned, soul is to men as hard-drive is to the computer. It collects experience. Somehow, attached to the soul is a spirit - the self-conscious part of being. This is the part that experiences. Soul is like the sub-conscious; Spirit is the super-conscious.

[irishjayhawk]

It's odd to me that you'd blink at this. The Bible is a book written by several authors, translated and re-translated several times. It's not a social contract - it's an account of happenings, and teachings made by men writing from different perspectives and biases.

The Constitution is a contract with the American people.

Why in the world would I treat the two the same?

It's a moot point, to be sure.

You wouldn't. I see no reason for anyone trying to examine what I'm saying from a scientific perspective to understand. The only thing I can tell you is that not all communication is verbal. If someone starts blathering telling you God is talking to them, and giving you words, that person is lying. It won't be long before they're asking for money. This is not how God talks to men. He doesn't form words, but instead stirs mens souls. That's the best way I can describe it.

Couple things.

First, I am well aware that communication doesn't have to be verbal.
Second, I am still wondering how YOU know what god does and doesn't do, how he does and doesn't communicate, etc. You are decrying people knowing that yet you yourself are in the know. At least as far as I can tell.


To free men from the spiritual bondage that they are in, and have been in by the spiritually empty material religions that required such things as slaughtering of animals to atone for ancestral sin. To experience His creation first hand, in order to understand the challenges His creation faces. To deliver men into the spiritual freedom that frees them from the material problems of the world through the mechanism of faith.

So basically the same thing except without the dying for sins?


What's to reconcile? The man was physical, but contained the consciousness of The Creator - though by all appearances, His memory was that of an infant, initially without knowledge of his divine nature. It appears that it wasn't until his baptism that he became aware of his divine nature.

Well, to be fully human, you cannot be fully divine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be human. And if you're fully human you cannot be fully divine. They are contradictions. Merely being in human form is not being human, as the gospels point out. Moreover, the Bible indicates original sin is an important characteristic of humans. Jesus was born without sin so therefore he was not fully human.

And then you get into the whole thing about virgin births, which I won't go into because I suspect you don't buy into that, correct?




As far as I'm concerned, soul is to men as hard-drive is to the computer. It collects experience. Somehow, attached to the soul is a spirit - the self-conscious part of being. This is the part that experiences. Soul is like the sub-conscious; Spirit is the super-conscious.

When would you access either the soul or the spirit?

And when you say soul is the subconscious, do you mean the subconcious as in the driving force behind, say, your crush on a girl, your favorite foods, etc?

[Jenson71]

How can you make such a claim? It's clear in the Bible that the Romans wanted nothing of him. Hence, Pilate put it up for vote. I very much doubt that the Romans would put up every persecution to a vote.

The Bible does indeed make it clear that the Jews were the most involved. But when you immerse yourself into Roman imperial history, you come out with a different conclusion. And then you must wonder about the biases of the authors of the New Testament. Are they biased? Against who?

You do not have to take everything in the Bible literally. With everything in life, reason should be applied. Reason and logic are great gifts man has. And you should use them when reading the Bible and examining your religion.

How do you know God's will, you asked Taco. It's through Revelation and human reason. That's the traditional answer.

How can you point to this being a translation problem, yet, the virgin birth is a known mistranslation between "virgin" and "young woman".

It's Matthew's use of Isiah, where he took liberty with the word meaning young woman. Matthew's theme is to connect the story of Jesus Christ with the Old Testament. He does that here, but it's been argued that he stretched to get his connection. It doesn't mean that we mistranslate Matthew's use of virgin, or anyone else's in the Bible.

[irishjayhawk]

The Bible does indeed make it clear that the Jews were the most involved. But when you immerse yourself into Roman imperial history, you come out with a different conclusion. And then you must wonder about the biases of the authors of the New Testament. Are they biased? Against who?

You do not have to take everything in the Bible literally. With everything in life, reason should be applied. Reason and logic are great gifts man has. And you should use them when reading the Bible and examining your religion.

How do you know God's will, you asked Taco. It's through Revelation and human reason. That's the traditional answer.

How is that an answer?

First, you create the same folly (IMO) Taco keeps making. Revelation. What is that if it isn't communication from god to a subject?

Second, human reason leads us to a great many things that the Bible doesn't cover and that humans can only suppose god would be opposed to. So I'm not sure why that suffices as an answer.



It's Matthew's use of Isiah, where he took liberty with the word meaning young woman. Matthew's theme is to connect the story of Jesus Christ with the Old Testament. He does that here, but it's been argued that he stretched to get his connection. It doesn't mean that we mistranslate Matthew's use of virgin, or anyone else's in the Bible.[/QUOTE]

[Taco John]

How is that an answer?

First, you create the same folly (IMO) Taco keeps making. Revelation. What is that if it isn't communication from god to a subject?


I don't think I'm making a folly. I just think we are talking from different frames of reference.

I've never said God doesn't communicate with man. What I have said is that he doesn't communicate directly using WORDS.

God ministers to the spirit. Only someone who is mindfull of their relationship with God, and takes the time to turn off all the external stimulus and "listen with the heart" can "hear" what he has to "say." Only someone who is God-seeking will ever hear the inner-voice - but even the word voice isn't accurate becuase it's not of a tonal quality. It's not words in your head. If someone hears words in their head, they're hearing themselves talk - this isn't what I'm talking about. There's no material way to adequately describe a spiritual experience. And I'm not talking mystical. I don't even know what a mystical experience is. I'm talking about something that you experience within your spirit - the center part of you that is capable of the higher functioning emotions - the ones that seperate humans from animals.

[irishjayhawk]

I don't think I'm making a folly. I just think we are talking from different frames of reference.

I've never said God doesn't communicate with man. What I have said is that he doesn't communicate directly using WORDS.

God ministers to the spirit. Only someone who is mindfull of their relationship with God, and takes the time to turn off all the external stimulus and "listen with the heart" can "hear" what he has to "say." Only someone who is God-seeking will ever hear the inner-voice - but even the word voice isn't accurate becuase it's not of a tonal quality. It's not words in your head. If someone hears words in their head, they're hearing themselves talk - this isn't what I'm talking about. There's no material way to adequately describe a spiritual experience. And I'm not talking mystical. I don't even know what a mystical experience is. I'm talking about something that you experience within your spirit - the center part of you that is capable of the higher functioning emotions - the ones that seperate humans from animals.

So, if I merely postulate that there is a god, that would in itself be spiritual?

Doesn't that open up the gates for "anything goes"?

I mean we both know Jesus isn't the only spiritual figure in history/mythology. Thus, couldn't someone else take another person's teachings? And what would happen if that person's teachings conflict with yours. Say, they envision Thor or Zeus or the Roman God of War.

[Jenson71]

First, you create the same folly (IMO) Taco keeps making. Revelation. What is that if it isn't communication from god to a subject?

It is. The traditional, Catholic answer is that this part of knowing God came to us through Jesus Christ.


Second, human reason leads us to a great many things that the Bible doesn't cover and that humans can only suppose god would be opposed to. So I'm not sure why that suffices as an answer.


I do not see an argument here. Because human reason leads us to other knowledge, it can not be seen as a path to the knowledge of God? Maybe you can explain.

[bango]

Some points I need to make:

1. We recognize that the Jews believed the Messiah would be a warrior-savior. This thought did NOT go unnoticed by Roman authorities.

2. Jesus publicly talked of "the destruction of the temple"

3. Jesus appeared to overturn tables in the temple during his last week.

4. John the Baptist was killed by Herod soon after he challenged Roman authority

5. I'm not saying that Jewish authorities had no part -- but their part does not lie in the execution of Jesus. Their part lies in the turning over of Jesus. Jewish authorities themselves probably could not execute criminals.

6. The people who threw down the palms does not have to be the people who yelled "Crucify him!"

7. Crucifixion IS a Roman form of punishment for those who challenged established Roman authority. That is established fact concluded by historical knowledge.

Okay, so maybe this isn't a coherent argument, but it's late and I have to study.

Not to be picky, but I thought that John the Baptist was killed because Harrod's wife asked for it as a gift after he told her that she could have anything that she wanted. He did not want to have John killed, but also did not want to go back on his word to his wife. Is this not how it happened?

[bango]

I looked it up. It was the daughter's wish and her mother prompted it. He was in jail at the time for what you had stated.

[Taco John]

So, if I merely postulate that there is a god, that would in itself be spiritual?

No, Dr. Spock... ;)

You can't approach a spiritual matter from a scientific perspective. Postulation doesn't fit anywhere into the equation.

However, if you were sincere in your desire to seek for God, the faith of your God-seeking actions would eventually deliver the "lab results" you are seeking. But sincerety is a requirement.


Doesn't that open up the gates for "anything goes"?

No, I've already explained the part about the discernment of the will of God. It's not about "anything goes." Surely, we have the liberty to do whatever we want (ie, we don't typically get struck down dead on the spot, unless what we are doing is actually lethal), but everything we do comes with a spiritual consequence. Don't believe me? Ask almost any woman who has had an abortion about the spiritual toll the experience took on them.


I mean we both know Jesus isn't the only spiritual figure in history/mythology. Thus, couldn't someone else take another person's teachings? And what would happen if that person's teachings conflict with yours. Say, they envision Thor or Zeus or the Roman God of War.

In all teachings you can judge them by their fruits. This is how a person is able to discern the folly of the ancient Jews in the Old Testemant. They used God like he was a lucky charm for their wars. They viewed him as a vengeful God. And no wonder! They had a pretty rough go of it (and for that matter still are today).

It is my belief that Jesus's mission here on Earth (as God incarnate in the physical body of man) was to reveal the true nature of God to world - not only in his words, but more importantly IN HIS ACTIONS. Word are not important when it comes to the exploration of man's spiritual nature - in fact they get in the way. Ever wonder why Jesus didn't just write a book? The fact that He didn't should be a revelation in itself for anyone who bothers to ponder this question and it's follow-through spiritual implications.

With that said, your specific question seems to be about how to discern whether a teaching is true or false. The answer is simple as reading a thermometer. Jesus, as the revelation of God in man, demonstrated love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control -- even in the face of brutality, when he prayed "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." So to answer your question, I can tell if a teaching is true or false by it's fruits. If the fruits fall outside of this spectrum, then you can be certain that it's not the will of God. How can I tell? Well let's look at the inverse of them:

Joy - Despair = As a father, do I want my children to despair? Of course not.
Peace - War = As a father, do I want my children to war with eachother? Again, No.
Patience - Impatience = As a father, do I want my children to be petulant and impatient?
Kindness - Wickedness = As a father, do I want my children to be wicked?

...you get the point by now.

It's not about "picking and choosing." It's about spiritual discernment - with a cheat sheet: Jesus's life on earth.

[bango]

Back to the movie. Can anyone tell me if Maher mocks these people or does what Borat did and gets them to make themselves look foolish with a little coaxing?

[irishjayhawk]

It is. The traditional, Catholic answer is that this part of knowing God came to us through Jesus Christ.



I do not see an argument here. Because human reason leads us to other knowledge, it can not be seen as a path to the knowledge of God? Maybe you can explain.

I'm saying human reason leads us to new knowledge not covered by scripture. For example, ethical dilemmas regarding when life starts, stops, what is and isn't murder, what is and isn't life, etc. For judgements on those, people cannot look to the Bible. Instead, they must rely on god communicating with them or someone they respect (ie. pope).

Thus, I don't really buy your first argument that started this tangent.

[irishjayhawk]

No, Dr. Spock... ;)

You can't approach a spiritual matter from a scientific perspective. Postulation doesn't fit anywhere into the equation.

However, if you were sincere in your desire to seek for God, the faith of your God-seeking actions would eventually deliver the "lab results" you are seeking. But sincerety is a requirement.

See, this is where I see your argument falling apart. You keep talking about a desire, a seeking, and of sincerity. However, you can be doing all of those things and come to a different conclusion: leprechauns exist or the real god is FSM. You can fit all of the criteria you keep laying out on how to get into union and communication with "god".


No, I've already explained the part about the discernment of the will of God. It's not about "anything goes." Surely, we have the liberty to do whatever we want (ie, we don't typically get struck down dead on the spot, unless what we are doing is actually lethal), but everything we do comes with a spiritual consequence. Don't believe me? Ask almost any woman who has had an abortion about the spiritual toll the experience took on them.




In all teachings you can judge them by their fruits. This is how a person is able to discern the folly of the ancient Jews in the Old Testemant. They used God like he was a lucky charm for their wars. They viewed him as a vengeful God. And no wonder! They had a pretty rough go of it (and for that matter still are today).

It is my belief that Jesus's mission here on Earth (as God incarnate in the physical body of man) was to reveal the true nature of God to world - not only in his words, but more importantly IN HIS ACTIONS. Word are not important when it comes to the exploration of man's spiritual nature - in fact they get in the way. Ever wonder why Jesus didn't just write a book? The fact that He didn't should be a revelation in itself for anyone who bothers to ponder this question and it's follow-through spiritual implications.

With that said, your specific question seems to be about how to discern whether a teaching is true or false. The answer is simple as reading a thermometer. Jesus, as the revelation of God in man, demonstrated love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control -- even in the face of brutality, when he prayed "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." So to answer your question, I can tell if a teaching is true or false by it's fruits. If the fruits fall outside of this spectrum, then you can be certain that it's not the will of God. How can I tell? Well let's look at the inverse of them:

Joy - Despair = As a father, do I want my children to despair? Of course not.
Peace - War = As a father, do I want my children to war with eachother? Again, No.
Patience - Impatience = As a father, do I want my children to be petulant and impatient?
Kindness - Wickedness = As a father, do I want my children to be wicked?

...you get the point by now.

It's not about "picking and choosing." It's about spiritual discernment - with a cheat sheet: Jesus's life on earth.

You missed the question, I think. You think Jesus is the road to salvation and god. That's fine. What about the millions who don't. What if some of those people decide that the true god is, say, the Roman God of War. He demands sacrifices and things. Are you to say he's wrong because of Jesus?

That's what I mean by anything goes. You've rationalized it to yourself but if you expand outside yourself, it falls apart it seems.

[Ugly Duck]

Now there's one movie that I will go see.... just to make me feel a bit less alone. You religious folks have no idea how amazingly puzzling your beliefs are to the non-religious. Some religions think it perfectly normal to believe that the world sits on the back of a turtle. Some religions are right at home believeing that there are invisible blue people with two arms and two legs. Christian religious people think thats like totally out in left field, but find it no problem at all to believe in talking snakes and invisible people that fly around with bird wings on their back. Its about time someone made a movie like this!

[Jenson71]

I'm saying human reason leads us to new knowledge not covered by scripture. For example, ethical dilemmas regarding when life starts, stops, what is and isn't murder, what is and isn't life, etc. For judgements on those, people cannot look to the Bible. Instead, they must rely on god communicating with them or someone they respect (ie. pope).

Thus, I don't really buy your first argument that started this tangent.

Human reason and Revelation can work side by side; they aren't opposites, as you seem to be advocating.

We look to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, as the eternal rock that Christ Himself, in all His wisdom, set up for His Church. The world will always change, but the Cross remains. I think that the world will always change, but the Rock will remain, Steady and True.

[DaneMcCloud]

Human reason and Revelation can work side by side; they aren't opposites, as you seem to be advocating.

We look to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, as the eternal rock that Christ Himself, in all His wisdom, set up for His Church. The world will always change, but the Cross remains. I think that the world will always change, but the Rock will remain, Steady and True.

The same Pope that oversaw the Inquisition? Or published the "Witches Hammer"? Or kept Galileo on house arrest? Or had hundreds, if not thousands of scientists murdered in the name of the church?

How about the Pope from the house of Medici that had 16 children?

Are you going to make excuses for those facts?

Of course you are. And the reason will be that "everyone makes mistakes".

What a fucking load of horseshit.

HORSE. SHIT.

Believe what YOU want to believe but PLEASE, refrain but trying to shove HORSESHIT down the throats of the more educated.

[Jenson71]

What exactly is your argument with what I said Dane? That Catholics do not look to the Pope as Vicar of Christ? Or did you just find it necessary to post a few random conceptions and examples of Papal abuses that have occured throughout the Church's two millennia? The Medici Pope was Leo X. If you want the Pope with all the children, look to Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope. You want the Pope who oversaw the Inquisition? Sorry, you won't find just one. Shoot, you won't find just one Pope if you look in the years 1378-1417, you know, being the Great Schism and all. So what's the point Dane, that you, with all your more education, have to tell us about what I've said in theological matters? The truth is I could sit here all day and talk to you about Papal abuses. I'm a History major, that studies in particular Catholicism and Western Civilization. But please, Educated One, teach me something. Oh, but another request, could you at least provide us with some reasonable discourse? Or are you just going to dwell in hysterics and generalities with the subject?

[Taco John]

See, this is where I see your argument falling apart. You keep talking about a desire, a seeking, and of sincerity. However, you can be doing all of those things and come to a different conclusion: leprechauns exist or the real god is FSM. You can fit all of the criteria you keep laying out on how to get into union and communication with "god".

Of course, you're absolutely right. But If someone is sincere about their faith in Leprechauns, then surely they will reap the fruits of those beliefs.

And this is the part that you continue to miss - which is actually suprising to me, as it's the more measureable, scientific part of spirituality. If I plant a seed, it grows, and eventually, it bears fruit. By that fruit, I can judge the value of that seed. We all have the freedom to run off and sincerely believe whatever it is we want to believe - but in the end those beliefs will manifest their fruits. You reap what you sow. It's scientific cause and effect.

So if a person wants to sincerely believe in leprechauns, let's see what spiritual fruit it reaps. What follows when a person holds a belief in leprechauns? I would contend that disillusionment, despair, false hope, etc. follow this belief. If this is the harvest that a particular belief reaps, then it's clearly not the will of God - for we can accept as a given that the Heavenly Father (as revealed through Jesus) doesn't want us to experience these discomforts, though he does give us the freedom to.



You missed the question, I think. You think Jesus is the road to salvation and god. That's fine. What about the millions who don't. What if some of those people decide that the true god is, say, the Roman God of War. He demands sacrifices and things. Are you to say he's wrong because of Jesus?


I say their wrong because of their actions. If the religion that they practice is destructive, then I could not accept that they god they claim is the true creator.



That's what I mean by anything goes. You've rationalized it to yourself but if you expand outside yourself, it falls apart it seems.

You keep saying "anything goes," which shows me that you have neglected to register the constant drum-beat that I've kept through this dialogue about the spiritual fruits, and how they factor into real, personal religion. I've never intimated that "anything goes." What I have intimated is that where you find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, there you will find the will of God.

[Taco John]

What exactly is your argument with what I said Dane? That Catholics do not look to the Pope as Vicar of Christ? Or did you just find it necessary to post a few random conceptions and examples of Papal abuses that have occured throughout the Church's two millennia? The Medici Pope was Leo X. If you want the Pope with all the children, look to Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope. You want the Pope who oversaw the Inquisition? Sorry, you won't find just one. Shoot, you won't find just one Pope if you look in the years 1378-1417, you know, being the Great Schism and all. So what's the point Dane, that you, with all your more education, have to tell us about what I've said in theological matters? The truth is I could sit here all day and talk to you about Papal abuses. I'm a History major, that studies in particular Catholicism and Western Civilization. But please, Educated One, teach me something. Oh, but another request, could you at least provide us with some reasonable discourse? Or are you just going to dwell in hysterics and generalities with the subject?



He does point out an inevitable folly of socialized religion...

...though it shouldn't apply only to the Catholic church.

[tiptap]

Human reason and Revelation can work side by side; they aren't opposites, as you seem to be advocating.

We look to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, as the eternal rock that Christ Himself, in all His wisdom, set up for His Church. The world will always change, but the Cross remains. I think that the world will always change, but the Rock will remain, Steady and True.

Reasoning is submissive to Revelation and Church Teachings. All systems of logic have beginnings points that are tied to the system logically but are not subject to examination. This gets into Godel's arguments. So the Church's position is that they set the beginning points for the argument. And Philosophically that is on equal footing with any other system, be it another religion or modern scientific thought.

The distinction comes in whether the system matches up well with our findings in the world. The modern understanding of atoms, galaxies, energy and such are NOT logically possible in a religious system that holds God is whole unto Himself. We have no evidence of anything being whole unto itself except the most fundamental building blocks. Even the most simple objects are made up of an astronomical number of interacting parts. And yet the largest entity or structure or whatever, called God, can not be so and be true to the teachings. Same for human souls. They can't be divided. This is what makes the twin question so difficult. Yes you can raise rhetorical arguments that hide these conflicts behind the curtain of Mystery. Yet there is no example of what is being claimed. It is a concept that doesn't match up with any example. It rises from a misunderstanding of self.

So one of the big reasons I am dismissive of talks about most people's thoughts about god is the atom. I find the atom substantiated and Adam unrealistic.

[irishjayhawk]

Of course, you're absolutely right. But If someone is sincere about their faith in Leprechauns, then surely they will reap the fruits of those beliefs.

And this is the part that you continue to miss - which is actually suprising to me, as it's the more measureable, scientific part of spirituality. If I plant a seed, it grows, and eventually, it bears fruit. By that fruit, I can judge the value of that seed. We all have the freedom to run off and sincerely believe whatever it is we want to believe - but in the end those beliefs will manifest their fruits. You reap what you sow. It's scientific cause and effect.

So if a person wants to sincerely believe in leprechauns, let's see what spiritual fruit it reaps. What follows when a person holds a belief in leprechauns? I would contend that disillusionment, despair, false hope, etc. follow this belief. If this is the harvest that a particular belief reaps, then it's clearly not the will of God - for we can accept as a given that the Heavenly Father (as revealed through Jesus) doesn't want us to experience these discomforts, though he does give us the freedom to.

And you touch upon the other half of my problem with religion. It has a superiority complex. Jesus is the only way. My God is better and truer than your god. Et al.

The belief in leprechauns could reap ALL of what you currently reap from yours. But you won't have an answer for that. You already contend that disillusionment, despair, and false hope would accompany it. You are already contending that the only true way is Jesus.

Personal religion shares an awful lot in common with organized religion which you despise.

I say their wrong because of their actions. If the religion that they practice is destructive, then I could not accept that they god they claim is the true creator.

So, in other words, you would accept Buddha?


You keep saying "anything goes," which shows me that you have neglected to register the constant drum-beat that I've kept through this dialogue about the spiritual fruits, and how they factor into real, personal religion. I've never intimated that "anything goes." What I have intimated is that where you find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, there you will find the will of God.

Clearly, I'm not explaining myself.

You are defining "god" as the path in which you find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control. Non-believers can have ALL of these. Non-Jesus believers can have ALL of these. Leprechaun believers can have ALL of these. Does that mean that the ends of their paths are correct, as you assert with yours?

This is what I mean by anything goes.

[irishjayhawk]

What exactly is your argument with what I said Dane? That Catholics do not look to the Pope as Vicar of Christ? Or did you just find it necessary to post a few random conceptions and examples of Papal abuses that have occured throughout the Church's two millennia? The Medici Pope was Leo X. If you want the Pope with all the children, look to Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope. You want the Pope who oversaw the Inquisition? Sorry, you won't find just one. Shoot, you won't find just one Pope if you look in the years 1378-1417, you know, being the Great Schism and all. So what's the point Dane, that you, with all your more education, have to tell us about what I've said in theological matters? The truth is I could sit here all day and talk to you about Papal abuses. I'm a History major, that studies in particular Catholicism and Western Civilization. But please, Educated One, teach me something. Oh, but another request, could you at least provide us with some reasonable discourse? Or are you just going to dwell in hysterics and generalities with the subject?

Seriously, have you read the Courtiers Reply. It basically fits your entire argument.


Moreover, I am curious as to the evidence for the claim that no pope(s) oversaw the Inquisition or Crusades.

[Jenson71]

Reasoning is submissive to Revelation and Church Teachings. All systems of logic have beginnings points that are tied to the system logically but are not subject to examination. This gets into Godel's arguments. So the Church's position is that they set the beginning points for the argument. And Philosophically that is on equal footing with any other system, be it another religion or modern scientific thought.

Hmm. Thanks for the challenge with this post. Most of it made no sense to me, but I can look into it.

[Jenson71]

Seriously, have you read the Courtiers Reply. It basically fits your entire argument.


Nope, never even heard of it.

[irishjayhawk]

Nope, never even heard of it.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.


Whereby Dawkins (it was originally made in response to his books detractors) is actually anyone who criticizes religion.

It applies to everything you've said.

[Jenson71]

I don't even understand the quote much less how it applies to "everything [I've] said"

[Jenson71]

It applies to everything you've said.

Okay, I just looked up your new phrase of the week. As usual, it doesn't apply.

If correcting people when they make wrong statements and defending beliefs are now seen as something you don't want to deal with because it gets in the way of your attack, well, tough.

Please be cautious when you veer off the path of quoting Dawkins verbatim, irish.

[irishjayhawk]

Okay, I just looked up your new phrase of the week. As usual, it doesn't apply.

If correcting people when they make wrong statements and defending beliefs are now seen as something you don't want to deal with because it gets in the way of your attack, well, tough.

Please be cautious when you veer off the path of quoting Dawkins verbatim, irish.

Once again, because something comes from something related to Dawkins, it has no merit. I might also add that you're wrong about verbatim. He didn't write this. It's also interesting that it isn't me that injected condescension into this otherwise fine thread. Furthermore, I think pretty much the entire thread has been off the path of quoting Dawkins. But, man, he must be a thorn in your side. Every time he comes up, you get all condescending and bluster strawmen, snides, or the like.

You continue to push this ideology that you have to be a theologian, historian or a believer to critique religion. Your post to Dane on the matter fits the Courtiers Reply to a tee.

So what's the point Dane, that you, with all your more education, have to tell us about what I've said in theological matters?.....But please, Educated One, teach me something.

[Jenson71]

I never said anything about Dawkins or any of his arguments, or even any of his disciples' arguments. I specifically directed my comment towards you. You don't have to be a theologian, historian, or a believer to critique religion. Don't project that claim unto me. I disown that idea entirely. I also dislike the idea of some clown spewing out falsities out of context that had little connection to what the discussion was about, but felt he needed to get his two cents in for the hell of it. So I'll call him out on it, especially since he's so confident that he's "more educated" on the matter.

[irishjayhawk]

I never said anything about Dawkins or any of his arguments, or even any of his disciples' arguments. I specifically directed my comment towards you. You don't have to be a theologian, historian, or a believer to critique religion. Don't project that claim unto me. I disown that idea entirely. I also dislike the idea of some clown spewing out falsities out of context that had little connection to what the discussion was about, but felt he needed to get his two cents in for the hell of it. So I'll call him out on it, especially since he's so confident that he's "more educated" on the matter.

Okay, that's fine. Just seemed to fit the Courtiers reply to a tee.

However, the bigger issue here is your condescension once someone mentions an argument made by someone else. You go haywire. It's like you short circuit.

[bango]

Now there's one movie that I will go see.... just to make me feel a bit less alone. You religious folks have no idea how amazingly puzzling your beliefs are to the non-religious. Some religions think it perfectly normal to believe that the world sits on the back of a turtle. Some religions are right at home believeing that there are invisible blue people with two arms and two legs. Christian religious people think thats like totally out in left field, but find it no problem at all to believe in talking snakes and invisible people that fly around with bird wings on their back. Its about time someone made a movie like this!

I have some idea. I am a Christian and I do not feel that way. People can believe what they want to. Many believe or claim to just for the attention that they receive. I do not believe in talking snakes. I am not sure about angels either. There are many things that I am not completely sure of how to believe when It comes to my faith. The best thing that I can think of to say about most of the things that are in the Bible are that in order for most of them to happen it would have taken the Intervention of the Divine. I am not sure if God is that direct or not. One eithers believes it or they do not. It is a lot to ask. It is not easy. I was raised that way and rejected it when I became an adult. I now believe that following the teachings of Jesus and taking the moral lessons from what the rest of it covers can help me to become a better man and maybe make less mistakes in life. There are many that are raised that way from birth and that is all that they know so it makes perfect sense to them. They may question it and even for a period of time lasting years. I think that it is a good idea to question it and look for the answers on one's own. I am not sure that it is healthy to just accept what is given for peace of mind. Almost any good Minister will tell one that too. Even they question things at times also.

[SLAG]

I have not read this thread at all... nor have I seen the movie.
but I think this belongs in here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[irishjayhawk]

I have not read this thread at all... nor have I seen the movie.
but I think this belongs in here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I got 43 seconds in and already he's made my point for me. You take part of it literally and part of it figuratively. Except, you can't tell which to take figuratively or which to take literally unless you're drawing from an outside source - which wouldn't be the Bible.

[mikey23545]

I have not read this thread at all... nor have I seen the movie.
but I think this belongs in here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Let me say right off the bat, I consider myself an atheist...But even I would say the guy in this video is to Bill Maher as Einstein is to Moe, Larry, and Curly...

I am very impressed with his reasoning, but then unlike most of the atheists on this BB, I have no hatred of religion...

[Jenson71]

I got 43 seconds in and already he's made my point for me. You take part of it literally and part of it figuratively. Except, you can't tell which to take figuratively or which to take literally unless you're drawing from an outside source - which wouldn't be the Bible.

Reasoning, which most Christians, including Catholics use, can be that outside source.

We just can't fight reasoning. We are all critical thinkers. We can't help it - it's the Greek in us. When we hear or read something that is logically inconsistent to the world around us or to our greater understanding of that world, we start to critique it. That doesn't mean it's completely wrong, of course, just because it seems implausible. But if we critically examined the Bible, we would come away with many questions; some have rejected those questions for comfort in the name of faith.

[HolyHandgernade]

I have not read this thread at all... nor have I seen the movie.
but I think this belongs in here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This guy speaks very integrally, I liked him alot. But what he is doing is engaging spirituality at a higher level than what most people do. I'm not saying Maher is right, but what Maher has a problem with is religious people who think their religion ought to be your religion and attempt to inject that point of view into the political system, into the social system. And, as high minded as this interview was, and I don't mean that lightly, the majority of people take many of the "books" he would consider mythological and assert them as literal. That's not necessarily his fault, but it goes back to the point very few sects will specify which parts are to be regarded as what type of genre. I'm sure you probably get disagreements within the Catholic Church itself on that.

-HH

[Dave Lane]

I say their wrong because of their actions. If the religion that they practice is destructive, then I could not accept that they god they claim is the true creator.





You keep saying "anything goes," which shows me that you have neglected to register the constant drum-beat that I've kept through this dialogue about the spiritual fruits, and how they factor into real, personal religion. I've never intimated that "anything goes." What I have intimated is that where you find love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, there you will find the will of God.

TJ

Ummm have you actually read the bible? Seriously the god of the bible IS a war god. Particularly the old testament. He is slaughtering people by the tens of thousands. He is jealous, spiteful and murderous and proud of it. If you missed that somehow you have missed a major part of the message.

Dave

[Dave Lane]

Reasoning, which most Christians, including Catholics use, can be that outside source.

We just can't fight reasoning. We are all critical thinkers. We can't help it - it's the Greek in us. When we hear or read something that is logically inconsistent to the world around us or to our greater understanding of that world, we start to critique it. That doesn't mean it's completely wrong, of course, just because it seems implausible. But if we critically examined the Bible, we would come away with many questions; some have rejected those questions for comfort in the name of faith.

I believe that every christian has their own religion and religious views. Everyone seems to look at all the "rules" and finds what fits them and what doesn't. Leviticus has a parcel of rules and not many follow them. It includes death for anyone that works on the sabbath (and that can be sat or sun) takes the name of the lord in vain or wears fabric from two types of cloth, or cuts the hair near the temples. Some people lie a little bit. Some not at all, Some just in certain instances.

There is no religion in my mind that really exists. To me all people have their own moral compass and religion is a why to compare and contrast what other people think to help form yours when you lack the ability to to this on your own.

[Jenson71]

I believe that every christian has their own religion and religious views. Everyone seems to look at all the "rules" and finds what fits them and what doesn't. Leviticus has a parcel of rules and not many follow them. It includes death for anyone that works on the sabbath (and that can be sat or sun) takes the name of the lord in vain or wears fabric from two types of cloth, or cuts the hair near the temples. Some people lie a little bit. Some not at all, Some just in certain instances.

Well, even following the whole Bible fairly literally means you don't have to worry about wearing fabric from two types of cloth. The Bible has several writings that talk about why this some of the Old Testament stuff you mention is no longer needed.

[jidar]

I have not read this thread at all... nor have I seen the movie.
but I think this belongs in here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If all religious people thought this way the world would be a much better place.

From my perspective it's just a less severe degree of being wrong though. We could follow his argument through and say "so what's literal and what isn't and how do you know?" but at the end of the day we're going to have a big list of things that come down to "faith". Faith that the Bible is true, same as it always does.

It's not a rational argument, it's still faith based.

[Dave Lane]

Well, even following the whole Bible fairly literally means you don't have to worry about wearing fabric from two types of cloth. The Bible has several writings that talk about why this some of the Old Testament stuff you mention is no longer needed.

Wheres that at? Just curious on that one. Also does it give specifics on what to overlook? Slavery or??

[Jenson71]

Wheres that at? Just curious on that one. Also does it give specifics on what to overlook? Slavery or??

It's most clear in Paul's explanation of why we don't need the old Law. Off the top of my head, I think "Romans" would be the best place to start.

[NewPhin]

Wheres that at? Just curious on that one. Also does it give specifics on what to overlook? Slavery or??

http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/324631-did-jesus-make-old-covenant-moses.html

I just was doing a quick scripture search to answer your question and found a similar, very involved thread on another board. I won't rehash it here, but if you read about the first few posts, you'll see the general response that you'll likely get from most people who believe that Christ changed/altered the old testament covenant laws.

[Dave Lane]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/324631-did-jesus-make-old-covenant-moses.html

I just was doing a quick scripture search to answer your question and found a similar, very involved thread on another board. I won't rehash it here, but if you read about the first few posts, you'll see the general response that you'll likely get from most people who believe that Christ changed/altered the old testament covenant laws.

Even the ones on homosexuality? It seems the old testament is used when convenient by christians and ignored when at odds with personal beliefs.

[Duck Dog]

I have tired of Maher's shtick.

What else will keep him employed now that the Dems have control?

[Taco John]

TJ

Ummm have you actually read the bible? Seriously the god of the bible IS a war god. Particularly the old testament. He is slaughtering people by the tens of thousands. He is jealous, spiteful and murderous and proud of it. If you missed that somehow you have missed a major part of the message.

Dave



Yes, I've read (and studied) the Bible.

It appears to me to be a book about the evolution of the Judeo-Christian theology. In the beginning, man thinks of God as a mean-spirited, vengeful Lord who demands that blood should be shed to satisfy his anger over the sins of men. Then, the prophecied Messiah comes, and reveals God as a loving God who wants people to love eachother as they love themselves. It ends with an ironic conclusion as his Jewish followers only accept part of his message, and run off to found a lasting religion about the man - rather than his message.

To say that I missed the message, and that God is a war god, is to miss the entire narrative of the Gospels.

[Swanman]

What else will keep him employed now that the Dems have control?

He has a show that can be very entertaining with the right panel and guests. He will do just fine.

[HolyHandgernade]

I think there's very little doubt Yahweh is a war god, in fact, probably also a volcano god, who later gets elevated to the one true god status. Moses wears the ram's horns, signifying the great war hero for the god he champions.

-HH

[Dave Lane]

Yes, I've read (and studied) the Bible.

It appears to me to be a book about the evolution of the Judeo-Christian theology. In the beginning, man thinks of God as a mean-spirited, vengeful Lord who demands that blood should be shed to satisfy his anger over the sins of men. Then, the prophecied Messiah comes, and reveals God as a loving God who wants people to love eachother as they love themselves. It ends with an ironic conclusion as his Jewish followers only accept part of his message, and run off to found a lasting religion about the man - rather than his message.

To say that I missed the message, and that God is a war god, is to miss the entire narrative of the Gospels.

I agree with what you say, however my point was that there is a component of the message that very much is that of a war god. A not very pleasant one at that. There is no god of love and happiness in the original message.

[bango]

What else will keep him employed now that the Dems have control?

This shows just how little attention you pay as you give us your drive by views. He has and does call out the Dems out when they get it wrong.

[Dave Lane]

This shows just how little attention you pay as you give us your drive by views. He has and does call out the Dems out when they get it wrong.

Yep he has had Coulter and others on his show regularly. He is an equal opportunity skewer :)

[Swanman]

This shows just how little attention you pay as you give us your drive by views. He has and does call out the Dems out when they get it wrong.


One could argue that he helped get the Ron Paul ball rolling as well. He had Paul on his show at the very beginning of Paul's campaign.

[J Diddy]

Yep he has had Coulter and others on his show regularly. He is an equal opportunity skewer :)


every show features a republican guest

[Jilly]

That is what you believe. I do have to add that it does say that Christ is married to the Church. I would like to know what TJ's thoughts on that are also.

Paul says that. Paul. I know that I love some of his writings, but why the hell do we think that Paul is the end all of all of the Christian Faith? Sometimes I just think he's the Billy Graham of early Christianity.

[Jilly]

I've been curious about this movie, but probably won't see it. To be honest, I'm tired of folks lumping me into some broad Christian category as if I'm just some kind of sheep who has no brain of her own. Some of Maher's disdain for people of faith, I just can't handle it. I don't hate him for being atheist, I don't think he should be so rude to me because I don't choose that path.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I have not read this thread at all... nor have I seen the movie.
but I think this belongs in here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sk0el9nH6Q4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That was beautiful, Slag. I'm really proud of you, young man.

:clap:

[bango]

Paul says that. Paul. I know that I love some of his writings, but why the hell do we think that Paul is the end all of all of the Christian Faith? Sometimes I just think he's the Billy Graham of early Christianity.

I give Graham much more credit than that. He really has come a long way over the years. I read an article a few years ago in Newsweek, I think. He was sorry for many mistakes that he had made decades ago. One was becoming so involved in politics and another was ill remarks that he had made about Jews. I have a lot of respect for him. Maybe Paul and some of the others would have changed if they would have lived long enough to do so.

[Bowser]

I've been curious about this movie, but probably won't see it. To be honest, I'm tired of folks lumping me into some broad Christian category as if I'm just some kind of sheep who has no brain of her own. Some of Maher's disdain for people of faith, I just can't handle it. I don't hate him for being atheist, I don't think he should be so rude to me because I don't choose that path.

Sounds like you want to "Crusade" against Maher and his ilk.




:D

[Jenson71]

That was beautiful, Slag. I'm really proud of you, young man.

:clap:

Why do you like it so much? Because it shows a member of the Catholic clergy who speaks with reason and thoughtfulness? Because you expect a religious person to sound like KCJohnny, The Decider of All that is Catholic, instead?

Isn't it beautiful when not just one side (faith) battles another side (science), but sees these aspects as elements of the whole truth of everything that is, was, and ever will be?

If you ever want to be amazed at the intellectual depth of the Catholic, there is no shortage of places to go. Look at the Jesuit Universities (Georgetown, Seton Hall), or other orders of universities that are proudly Catholic, such as Notre Dame. There are priests and nuns that teach science, law, engineering, any and every subject. Check out websites like What Does the Prayer Really Say, or just read a history book to see the accomplishments of former Catholics. Or read what is widely considered the greatest English history of philosophy - a nine volume set by the Jesuit Frederick Copleston written in the 40s-70s especially designed for Catholic seminary students.

Reading KCJohnny's posts will give you the impression that 1.) the Church is dead and 2.) there is no room in today's world for the Church because it doesn't fit right for today's world and 3.) this is all because of science and whatever else is against his political agenda.

It's simply insecurity and intellectual laziness that fuel those emotions.

[Mr. Kotter]

I've been curious about this movie, but probably won't see it. To be honest, I'm tired of folks lumping me into some broad Christian category as if I'm just some kind of sheep who has no brain of her own. Some of Maher's disdain for people of faith, I just can't handle it. I don't hate him for being atheist, I don't think he should be so rude to me because I don't choose that path.

Excellent post. :clap:

Well said.

The atheist/agnostic crowd on the board would do well to extend Christians, as a group, the same tolerance and deference they wish to have extended to them.

:clap: