This is ultimately the point. If you believe it is fiction that's, of course, perfectly fine. But, that means - and especially since you "don't read fiction" - you have no claim to any knowledge whatsoever about it. I don't go around telling people what the The Iliad means and what parts are historically accurate and what parts are less than literally true (after all, Homer was essentially the bible of Greek civilization). Why? Because I've never actually read the Iliad and even if I had, I didn't read it with any sort of understanding that a person who is reading it for other purposes might.

Similarly, being told one understanding does not mean that I now have THE understanding of it. In fact, as is the case with the bible, maybe there are many other, and some nearly completely opposite understandings. For example, I don't believe the bible is fiction, however I do believe that there were no such people as Adam and Eve, I don't believe the world was created in 7 days, I don't believe in Noah and the Ark, etc etc etc.

I have nothing wrong with people believing whatever they chose to believe. But to presuppose that you have an understanding of that which you admittedly don't believe in and pay little attention to, frankly, makes no sense.

Incidentally, there are those who would argue that Jesus may not have actually "walked on water" as well. And, personally, I don't really care if he physically walked on water or not, beyond an academic interest. Why? Because whether he physically walked on water or not has little, if anything at all, to do with the purpose and message of his life and the bible.

It's refreshing to hear a Christian disclaim supposed events and writings that have formed the basis for the teachings of the Faith. Perhaps if more of the bretheren would read between the lines and not accept everything blindly, then there would be a more balanced perspective on life.

Zealots in any field ( and religion ) tend to raise the ire and passion of those that live to decry. Islam is the perfect example at the moment. The religion has so many positive aspects - but is brought into disrepute by splinter groups acting " on behalf of all Islam ". The teachings are good, the behaviour of 99.5 % is exemplary - but stupidity seems to accompany zealism by default.

I would agree 100% with the above. I have yet to meet a Muslim that was blatantly so, and certainly have had none attempt to convert me. Of the Buddhists I know....only one has attempted to "enlighten" me(and that at my request". Virtually half of the christians I know have proclaimed the error of my ways, or outright attempted to convert my faith to their own.
To clarify....I do know quite a few followers of Eastern religions, as well as western. My point is, I have personally drawn the conclusion, after moderate study of many paths, that the Christian/Catholic faith(s) are by far the most condescending to others, and therefor the paths I most avoid.
Each religion can be interpreted as something the others regard as Evil, and some within each will become violently fanatical.....welcome to human nature.
These are not the individuals to base an understanding of said religion on. That said there is a "General" attitude portrayed within the folds of each subset of a theology. Careful examination of the dogma present in the population of these groups is very revealing when it comes to the underlying reasons for fanatic beliefs. The underlying teachings in muslim faith are reletively benign, as are those of a Buddhist incling. Christian Teachings (at least from a couple of the bible versions) do tend to foster a certain disdain for those who are of a differing faith, this will inevitably lead to many people leaving the fold as they become more mature in social dealings.

But, Adysav, I'm not claiming it's true. I'm claiming it's possible. Do you just not understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying "a statement is true if you can't derive a contradiction", I'm saying that a statement is possibly true if you can't derive a contradiction. Two worlds of difference there.

A logical argument is built on premises which must be true before a conclusion can be reached. To reach a conclusion without valid premises leads to a completely pointless and nonsense conclusion.

Just making a statement like "All birds are green" is not using logic. It is just producing a conclusion out of thin air. Manipulating language to produce a valid sentence makes no difference to whether the actual meaning of that sentence has an real value or not.

"There are 3 planets in our solar system"
Is there a contradiction? No.
Is it possible? No.

I went to a Church of England school and religious education was a compulsory subject of mine for about 10 years. I have also read quite a large amount of it while arguing with people on forums :rolleyes:

If you can see that someone could possibly have embellished the story ever so slightly in order to add some weight of authenticity about it's holy origins, then that's cool. What I take exception to is people who will defend this book letter by letter to the death.
I believe that a lot of the history is more or less correct, as much as you can expect from people with limited resources. I believe that there are good moral teachings in it, but also dubious or outright bad ones.
I do not claim to have a 'deep understanding' of the bible that you attribute to christians, and if it meant turning me into one of these screeching evangelical nutcases I'd rather not.

Do you not believe that his teachings would be more accepted if he could prove his status as the son of god? If he actually did walk on water, bending the universe to his will, would that not make the whole thing more credible and even end the debate about the existence of a god...
From that point of view it would be quite an important piece of human history.

There are plenty of people like yourself who will take the more... fanciful stories with a pinch of salt. Then there are people who are so unyielding in their belief that it would be funny were it not so serious. I know there are fanatics of all kinds out there, but it's the christian ones who seem to appear on the radar most frequently and appear to be the most outlandish.
With the exception, perhaps, of the Flat Earth Society.

Adysav. You must have slept through your logic course.

You are the one who is trying to make it something it is not.
Read this

I will ask somebody who is learned in the scriptures more than I. Better yet, you could read the Bible yourself. I have an agnostic friend that read the whole thing, and I think that everybody should, just as I have read some of the Book of Mormon, Quaran, and am about to begin reading some Hindu sacred texts. It's also referenced a lot in literature, so again, a good read.

Actually, quite the opposite, although some Christians believe so. (By the way, I don't like the term "Christian." It just doesn't sit with me.) My agnostic friend could tell you how to be saved, for one. It is something that since the Pentecostal movement in the 1920's people have believed. The person being "saved" (another cliche word that I don't like) has to make the decision by him/herself. The only "saver" is God (Jesus was just the sacrifice. God the father forgives.) That's why I don't bother people with it like most Christians do. I just try to stay true and sincere to what I believe, and I let that be my only witness.

By the way, Hindus believe that the true Christian religion is the equivalent Hindu way of getting to eternity through love.

Some of you have been quick to judge. I challenge you to be more open-minded.

I also think that the Bible, in its entirety, isn't exact truth.

All that is required is for people to look at something and say " Is this is really possible "?

I assume you are speaking of this statement:
Whoever wrote this wasn't very clear on what he meant. There seem to be several statements within this paragraph.

1. Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe.
This is vague, and I assume fleshed out by what follows.
2. If x is logically impossible, it must be impossible.
This is true. See what I wrote above, regarding the definition of 'logically impossible'.
3. X can be shown to be logically impossible, based on the science of the day.
This is false; this seems also to be the source of your confusion. There are, perhaps, some things which science does show to be logically impossible. One common example of this, used quite often inversely as an example of necessary truth, is "This is water and is not H2O". Philosophers don't really agree about whether or not these statements are logically impossible; it depends alot on what you think about the role of natural science and what it tells us. If you think 'water' means 'H2O', you'll accept the above statement as necessarily false. But if you think 'water' means 'clear, more or less tasteless liquid that, when clean, is good to drink', you won't. But:

1. It is dubious whether or not the 'laws of science' are necessary truths.
There is some disagreement about this, though, from what I've seen, the
position that the 'laws of science' are necessary truths is a minority opinion.
2. Even if the laws of science are necessary truths, empirical
observations made by science almost certainly are not. The fact that
our solar system has nine planets is not a necessary truth.

4. The paragraph goes on to say that people believed the following claim:
"Euclidean geometry is consistent -> Euclidean geometry is true" First of all, if this is meant as a justification for the rejection of the claim "p is naturally impossible -> p is logically impossible", it fails. "~(p -> q)" does not entail "~(~p -> ~q)"[1]. Moreover, no one ever claimed that Euclidean geometry is true because it is consistent. They claimed it was true because most of its premises (four if I remember the number correctly) had been proven, and the fifth seemed reasonable to believe (which is why we still teach Euclidean geometry in high school, and save Riemannian geometry for more advanced courses.)

I'm not really arguing philosophy here. I'm telling you what a word means. "Logically impossible" just means that a contradiction can be derived from it. It's not a philosophically controversial definition.

[1]Since ~(p->q) entails p&~q, and ~(~p->~q) entails p&q. In order to translate the argument, parse p as 'p is naturally impossible', q as 'p is logically impossible', and ~p is the same as 'p is naturally possible'. I take the statement about Euclidean geometry to be meant as a counterexample to the general principle at issue.

1. Basically, your premises might not be entirely accurate, unknown to you at the time.

2. Isn't what he's actually saying. He means the opposite, ie If x is logically impossible it might still be possible due to 1.

3. Again this is because of 1. The whole water/H2O argument is absurd and just a case of a lack of proper definition, as shown by "if you think". Water is H2O, H2O is water, it's common name. Your average glass of water might not be pure H2O, but then it becomes a different argument. Fiddling the definitions doesn't change the reality of the matter.

4. This is where we start to notice there's only really one message in this paragraph, that stated in 1.

Yes. Your logic depends on the integrity of your premises however, and if they're wrong and you don't know it then your argument is still invalid.

Mmmmmm..tastes like off topic...*drooling noise*

Again, you must have slept through your logic course. The truth or falsity of your premises has nothing to do with the validity of your argument -- the website you quoted me says just the same thing[1]. You clearly just don't understand what I'm saying about H2O and water -- it's definitely controversial whether or not water is defined as H2O, or, if not, why has there been so much ink spilled over Twin Earth. Your ?point #1, again, just fails to get it. First, sure my premises might be wrong, but that's just saying I might be wrong about something's being logically impossible, NOT that something's being logically impossible isn't what I've been saying it is. If x is logically impossible, it is logically impossible. It's just a misuse of logic of the grossest sort to say "Even if it's logically impossible it might be possible, b/c you might be wrong about it's being logically impossible." Of course. But in that case, it's not logically impossible. Second, proving something to be logically impossible doesn't require premises. '4 = 5' is logically impossible. I can prove it just using definitions of 4 and 5, and I doubt I'm mistaken about what 4 and 5 mean. If you're not understanding what I'm saying, then I'm happy to try and explain it a different way. But don't try and pretend you understand when it's obvious you don't.


[1]From "The Atheism Web":

Adysav, it's okay to be outgunned on a topic. No one knows everything. Asaris has more knowledge on this subject than you, and that's okay. It doesn't make you any less of a person. Asaris is delving into college level logic which a lot of people couldn't keep up with. We've all been wrong before. I'm sure there are times when Asaris is wrong, but (according to my decent knowledge of logic theory) this is not one of those times.
Asaris, this is like trying to explain calculus to an algebra 1 student. He's plenty smart and has the right intentions, but lacks the training necessary to keep up with you. Good points in the Sept 26 thread. I think after that, it's not worth it trying to explain.

Twin Earth is a hypothetical situation where the definitions are different.


I wasn't saying that the logical conclusion reached using your assumptions was logically flawed, but that it does not necessarily tally with real life.

"These are called premises, and are the assumptions the argument is built on;"
The fact that 4 and 5 are the numbers you think they are, are your assumptions and your premises. If I assume that 4 is actually what we call 5, then your logical argument would be true. Making a statement and then just claiming it to be true based on nothing is working against logic itself.

willravel, I will not be taking any shit from someone who lists "Intelectual Conversation" (sic) as one of his hobbies.

Continue to debate logic, do not continue to debate logic, whatever, BUT, debate it in another thread. This debate certainly does not relate to the thread topic any longer.

We're just trying to find out how you argue the point when we have no tangible evidence that these events ever happened.
asaris is confident that his wordplay will somehow relieve the argument of a basis in the real world, and I disagree.

I'm quite happy to drop the logic argument, because I know that regardless of whether my argument follows standard logical procedure there is practically nothing he can do to prove his point aside from proving the existence of God.

It would seem this debate has become a loop of differing opinions, and a course in human nature. There is likely to be no closure found when discussing logical biblical interpretation. Scripture, and for that matter, Logic to a certain extent are based on personal understanding of percieved facts/ information. In my opinion, both posting parties have relayed truths and have a valid position. That is not to say either is correct, or wrong. This debate has occured in many forms, numerous times inside this community and I have yet to see resolution. Rather these discussions generally turn into flame fests due to frustration.

How about a fresh start:

Perhaps if we read the origional post, and go from there, we may get somewhere this time.

It is my opinion that although Jesus was in fact , a real person, he was likely not the "Son of God", but rather a living Avatar( Avatar is a name for one who has reached ultimate enlightenment). The Buddah, and others would also fit this definition.
The bulk of the information contained within the Biblical story of this man is likely inaccurate, as would be any 2000 yr old story, interpreted hundreds of times by inumerable individuals. That said, all three questions become irrelevant unless we wish to discuss the "meaning" interpreted from the mythology contained in these writtings.

#1 Son of God: A Label given unto one who shows capabilities and understanding very far beyond the accepted norm. Human nature is to lift up that which we admire, or do not understand onto a pedistal. We also require payment of one kind or another, in exchange for relief of burden. Thus the destruction of that which we admire/love in exchange for the creators good graces.

#2 Human nature will also attempt to aleviate pain, if at all possible.

#3 When all else fails, and no happy ending is handy......write in an open ended closing.


*The above is of course, opinion. It bears no resemblance to Fact, as there can be no actual fact involved in a debate concerning something that is impossible to prove, at this time. Should such facts become availible, the author reserves the right to change the opinions expressed therein*

Let me ask you a question. How do you talk to a sceptic? My answer to that question was to simply think of things in the same way that they might, so that they may better understand your point from a point of view that is closer to their own.

I personally do not believe that Jesus was a con artist. Actually interpreting what I said as meaning a 'con artist' is really a narrrow view.

It would be a mistake to argue logic with you...so moving right along.

And again, we return to how to discuss something with a sceptic. I don't claim to have any idea of how long a day was in the book of genesis is pertaining to the creation. I was simply illustrating a point by showing that there is a possibility that some of Christianity can coincide with scientific theory.

I do not consider myself to be gullible. I consider myself to have a higher goal. Let's say God doesn't exist, for the sake of argument. If one were to believe in a great entity that taught a lot of good morals and lessons and led that person to lead a good and decent life, where is the harm? Gullibility is moot in this case. As for there being a God or not, there are ten thousand reasons there is a God and ten thousand reasons there is not one. Calling someone gullible for believing in God is like calling somone gullible for being a pacifist. It is a life choice.

Some of, yes. I admitted that a lot of it is historically accurate, although some stories can be found in alternate sources and often with differences you could obviously attribute to personal bias. The recording of history is well renowned for being 'interpreted' at the hands of the recorder.
Most of what you originally posted though is wildly inconsistent.
I agree that living a decent, moral life is a noble cause that every man should endeavour to follow. However I wouldn't say that belief in a god is essential to being a moral person.
You're actually misquoting me. What I said was "If you take the Bible as truth you are just gullible" and I stand by that. Believing in a god and believing what the Bible says are two different things.

Okay, calling someone gullible for believing in the Bible is like calling someone gullible for being a pacifist. Belief in the accuracy of scripture is part of a whole network of beliefs; examining any one of them out of context may cause it to seem irrational, but the whole network is pretty darn consistent. In any case, it's just arrogance to think that those of us who believe that scripture is accurate are 'gullible'. I don't think that people who don't believe in God are stupid; why do you have to call us gullible?

It seems, perhaps, adysav, that you are misinformed. You're letting your thoughts regarding religion be shaped by the proclaimed followers of the religion as opposed to what the religion actually says about itself. For example, there's the debate over how Christians could claim to know how long a day was when the earth came into being. This is a fair question, but the problem with it lies in the fact that many Christians DON'T claim to know that, and even less leaders of faith do. That's right - if you compare clergy and their church leaders side by side, many times church leaders are MORE likely to accept evolution and big bang (guided by God of course) than the clergy themselves. Of course, even more accept it than it seems because many people are misguided by the wording of the question. To many people, saying simply "yes" to " do you believe in evolution" is tantamount to saying they believe God had no part in creation, so they say no when, in fact, they DO believe in evolution but do not believe that God had no part in it.

The Bible is not and was not intended to be a history book. Very few Christians read it as such. So, debating over whether or not it's proper to "believe" in the bible using arguments based on its literal interpretation and use as a source of historical information as opposed to strictly spiritual information is simply misguided at best.

As a side note, the poetry that we attribute to "Homer" was passed on - accurately, with the exception of a few meaningless word changes - through nearly 1000 years of Greek history in which the Greeks were simply incapable of writing it down. They had no written language; no alphabet whatsoever. Yet, Homer survived, intact, over nearly 1000 years because of its poetic nature. Likewise, the same person who theorized and then later proved how this happened made the very same conjecture after analysis of the Bible. The point being that, even if I were not pointing out that the Bible was never intended to be a literal history, it is entirely feasable that it was passed down over such great lengths of time with little variation to its contents.

If evolution as we know it is consistent it precludes the existence of the God you believe in, or at least makes the stories regarding the Garden of Eden and the birth of man a little bit nonsensical.

There is evidence it was memorised but I'm not sure how - given there is no original copy - you could determine how accurately it was passed on.

There is no written copy of the original Homer either. I couldn't tell you precisely how, but the ways in which we know there have not been significant changes to the Old Testament Bible are the same as the ways we know that there have not been significant changes to Homer.

Homer's poetry was created at a time when there was no written language being used for literature - the language used by the Mycenaean's was almost exclusively used for accounting purposes, i.e. 10 goats exchanged for 5 vases and so forth. Milman Parry speculated, and proved the likelihood, that Homer, although never written down originally, was fairly consistant in how it was passed down over the nearly 1000 years of the Greek dark ages. He did a great deal of work with a group of peoples in Yugoslavia who had a very similar oral tradition in the early 1900s. This "theory" of his is now, to historians, about as much a theory as the theory of evolution is to scientists. To be perfectly frank, I don't feel the need to redo Milman Parry's work on Homer and the Bible and I trust the fact that it's a nearly unanimously accepted theory by the community of people far more educated than I in matters such as this - again, much like evolution.

Again, this presupposes that most religious folk believe in interpreting the Bible literally. Most do not, especially regarding this. Again, the "truthfulness" of the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with its literal accuracy, and most religious scholars agree on this as far as I am aware. The old testament is written essentially as a large book of poetry, and to expect poetic texts to be literally accurate is, at the very least, absurd.

To echo SM70, this isn't an appropriate test. There's nowhere in the Bible where it tells you to take everything literally...and the tradition has been to argue and contest the text. Why assume that the validity of the document rests on a single, extreme interpretation?

Then it essentially becomes just a story with a message, like thousands of books over time. Why choose christianity?
If the whole thing has just gone a bit over the top with the poetic licence and Jesus was just someone with a strong love of his fellow man and a desire to do good, then where is the need for a god?

(on a side note, can you imagine creating the 25000+ lines of the Iliad and the Odyssey without being able to write them down?)

A story with a message - sounds like a reasonably accurate interpretation to me.

Now if we can just get hold of the zealots and shake the shit out of them to accept this theory then ... Oh! does this make me a zealot from the other side?

As it seems to be on this topic, many will dismiss this line of thinking.

But as written in the original text of the bible a day was counted as sun up to sun down. Not just the vague “day”. The actual word had a time tied to it. And as far as Evolution goes there is one simple fact sin cause death. Without sin there can not be death. So, until man sinned nothing could have died. And evolution works mostly off the dying of the weak, unsuited beings that can’t survive as well in a certain environment.

Now I am not a priest, but we just went over this topic in a bible study and I thought it would be interesting to see.

And as a man of faith I can not turn my back on the bible and say it was the good intentions of those who wrote it. For faith to remain true it can not change to the whims of a people.

It should be clear to everyone that the Creation story in Genesis does not need to be taken literally for one to be a Christian. People have been treating it metaphorically at least since Aquinas, probably since much earlier (though, of course, for different reasons than evolution). But it also seems clear that, just because one wants to read parts of the Bible metaphorically, one does not need to take the whole thing metaphorically. My usual guide is 'what sort of literature does this seem to be?' With some parts of the Bible, it's easy. Proverbs is, well, proverbs. Psalms is poetry. Genesis, at least the first bit, reads like myth. The gospels, on the other hand, read like historical narrative.

wnker85 brings up a good point; this is half the reason why I, for a long time, did not believe in evolution on a grand scale (the other half is that it wasn't until college that I could find someone who knew enough about carbon dating to answer my objections to it). But, there are a few ways to spin it. One, the most plausible to me, is that it's *very* metaphorical. It's talking about the nature of mankind, that our nature is not to die, but to live eternally, and that things just went wrong here at a very early stage. Walker Percy has some interesting things to say on this; if people are interested, I can look it up and post the quote. But the point is that those philosophers (I'm thinking primarily of Heidegger here) who think that 'death' is somehow essential to our Being must be wrong. That is part of the thrust of my sig quote (and no, Badiou is not a Christian. He's a French materialist marxist.)

\

to the modern mind, rote memorization seems very alien. but a great deal of the cultures on this planet have spent pretty substantial amounts of time learning how to memorize and preserve texts. some brahmins in india still learn the vedas syllable by syllable, and then mix them up, learn it all again, just as a safeguard against error. i'm not claiming the recieved text is exactly how it was first said...but you do need to take in to account the ability of oral tradition to accurately preserve material.

and no...there is a HUGE gulf between a literal interpretation and "its a good story." if it was just a story...i don't think i'd give it more than second thought. it's a total non-sequiter to think that if it's not literal it is simply fiction.

Perhaps sending Jesus is just God's way of enforcing His will while letting us keep our own.

Tecoyah,the Jesus may save but religion kills comment is very interesting to me. In this whole discussion it is interesting to look at one the most loving sacrifices in the History of man, in the death of Jesus Christ, (assuming you are Christian and believe the death of Jesus as payment for our sins). But then look at all of the death and persecution that has taken place in the name of Jesus, and in the name of religion i.e Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, Persecution in Africa, and around the world. It makes it really difficult to understand others and to love others like the New Testament states, when there is so much distrust within religion and in many of the things it has caused. But there is still good to be found in Religion if we can get past hate, and distrust.

I would agree with your assesment. Most truly religious people I have encountered are loving and understanding, if somewhat closed minded. The problems I see, are created by the texts themselves, as they are far too vague in what this entity we refer to as "God" actually requires of us. Human nature is apt to create division from misunderstanding, and it is impossible to understand which version of scripture is accurate, if any.
Long ago I decided to forgo the hypocracy so prevelant in the Christian faith. I then studied eastern philosophy, and this lead to physics.Only with a relative understanding of all these, and much more did I find myself coming to a startling revelation.

They are all correct.

See...i don't think a little instruction book would be nearly so able at producing serious thought, reflection and meditation. Pedantic "thou shalts" are not going to engage people...and the relationship is what it's about, IMO.

Interesting thread. For those of you confused about the phrase "His only Son", I believe the associated phrase you should be looking for is "immaculate conception".

Immaculate conception? Nah, I think that Mary was just like any other woman and Joseph just like any other man - too afraid to tell their parents and kin that they forgot the condoms.

"immaculate conception"

Has nothing to do with Jesus. A later catholic teaching that Mary was concieved with out recieving original sin.

Quoted by martinguerre:-

"immaculate conception"

Has nothing to do with Jesus. A later catholic teaching that Mary was concieved with out recieving original sin.


Is this sort of like - "making the story up as they go along"? How many other facts have been made up to make the story a little bit more interesting. Isn't this what the tangent was heading towards some time ago. Logic, Scientific theory etc...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

New Advent is a pretty conservative Catholic site, but it can provide a decent answer nonetheless. Not sure what the last part of your comment was referring to, but most progressive Catholics and Catholics leaders embrace science and logic. There is a saying that the Word of God has "two books" - the Bible and Nature... i.e. neither can contradict the other, and when they do, the understanding and interpretation of one is likely wrong. Personally, I adhere to this belief. In line with this, I am "uncertain" regarding the doctrine of the imaculate conception. I believe it to be entirely possible, however I think that the definition of "what is immaculate" may change along with our understanding of God.

Incidentally, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is one of only two times the pope has spoken Ex Cathedra...a.k.a. infallibly.

Why would God sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself?

OK, my two cents as a pagan minister and armchair religious historian, I could ramble on all night about this, but my spiritual brother Curtis has phrased it much more eloquently than I ever could, so I'll share with you his words:

"In my world view, a human being is an attempt by the Universe to become conscious of Itself. In a way, we are exploratory robots for Consciousness. Humans are both bright (in intelligence and in interior Light) and brutal (you have to have some animal conciousness to function and survive here). I love the Jesus story because (in my world view) it is about God putting on a planet suit. I do not differ from my Christian siblings in believing that God has come into flesh, we only differ in that they think it only happened once, and I think it happens on a daily basis. "But God is perfect and you aren't" is the inevitable response. I am still waiting to hear what makes God "perfect" other than His ability to snap his fingers and kill me, create worlds, burn me for eternity, etc. Possessing power in itself doesn't make any being morally right or "perfect", otherwise any schoolyard bully (or Saddam) would be "right" and "perfect". In the Bible, God shows jealousy and anger, which are always based on fear. There is nothing particuarly perfect about that. I also notice that as mankind grew up emotionally, God got more and more subtle and adult. Can I really be blamed for thinking that God never changed, just humans changed their beliefs about what God was/is? I also find it tiresome, this idea "Jesus never sinned." If he couldn't sin, what was the big deal with Him incarnating here at all? We are presented with this asexual teetoltaler (well, according to the Baptists) who never had girlfriend problems or any other real human problems, yet He supposedly came down to experience what being a human was all about. How could he have? He didn't have many actual human experiences, other than being mortally vulnerable. I have said it before and will say it again: plenty of humans have died much more horrible deaths than Jeheshua, and they didn't have the comfort of knowing for sure that they were immortal. I am really not much impressed that God actually allowed himself to experience what amounted to some some mild temporary discomfort. This whole "I died for your sins so fall down and worship me" stuff is just a pure and simple Mafia style protection racket created by the Establishment so they could better control us. The human-created (in my world view) Bible God INVENTED the idea of "sin", then he INVENTED the idea of "saving us" from it. Just like the Mafia comes around and says "you gots a nice place here, be a shame if something happened to it, but give us tribute and we'll 'protect' you."
Obviously, all you're being protected from is THEM. Just like with God, all you're being "saved" from is his vicious human-style rage because he can't "abide sin".
Well, obviously He can abide it, with his jeaousies and rages and genocides and telling his followers "take the little children and smash their brains out against the wall." There's no bigger sinner than the Bible God. He's a murderer, a torturer, given to jealousy and anger. These are NOT sins? Or is He exempt simply because he is bigger and meaner than us? And Jesus DID sin, because he despaired, and there is no bigger sin than despair. But who wouldn't under similar circumstances? I love Jesus more when he sins than when he walks around in a perfectly clean white robe like some self righteous eunuch with his nose in the air, as some fundamentalists seem to see Him. Personally, I like the down and dirty Jesus, sweating blood in Gethsemene, asking "Please God, no, I can't handle this..." We have all been there, and sometimes we drink the Cup and sometimes we knock it aside. When it comes down to spiritual values, we all have to go with our hearts, heads, and guts, i.e., spirits, intellects, and intuition. Maybe the Lord has hardened my heart as He did with Pharoah, but my heart, head, and gut tell me that there is no personal God, that we have to do the Work ourselves, and that no one is going to save me, and that actually there is nothing to be saved from but ignorance and amnesia. If your heart, head, and gut tell you something different, well, i can't argue with you (although I appear to, lol), because you and I have nothing else to go with but our hearts, heads, and guts. I really have no choice but to see the world as I do. I realize that you do the same."

Ravenradiodj ...

Why do I have this urge to throw my hands in the air and shout " Hallelujah" ?

I don't have the energy left to reply to that last post (lol).

coopericko....

It'll be OK.

Walk your path, I'll walk mine, and when we happen to meet, it will be as brothers.

Whoa. I'm sure Baptist, and i'm quite aware that not only is Jesus God's Christ, an offer of salvation to all humankind, but that he had liver we could all be impressed with.

I don't know how people read those texts and get the idea that he was a world renoucer. Incarnation is the biggest scandal of the bible...that God would be here...in our messy world, and live in it. Go read it...don't just do it from memory. Go, actually get the book and read. I know...but it matters. The stories have been told too many times the way you say...but that's NOT what the book actually says. He goes to parties and gets drunk. He hangs out with lepers and whores. He argues with friends. He changes his mind about what his ministry means...becuase of what a gentile woman says.

if someone teaches that Jesus didn't have human experience, they are heretics. and i mean that in the nicest possible way...but they are in commission of an ancient heresy called docetism. the church has long held that Jesus didn't simply appear human, but was fully of our existance.

Interesting post, ravenradiodj. Unfortunately, I think it's riddled with errors of fact.
Have you ever read Hegel? This is quite similar to a bad reading of him. Not that that's an argument against your position, I'm just saying you might find him interesting.

Well, this is all true, as far as it goes. It's not God's power that makes him perfect; or rather, his power is only part of what makes him perfect. But you go on to say "In the Bible, God shows jealousy and anger, which are always based on fear." And this is simply false. Jealousy and anger can, and often are, based on fear. But they are also emotion which have their proper place. There are certain situations in which anger is appropriate, even morally required. There are even some situations in which jealousy is appropriate. And in none of these situations is the jealousy or anger motivated by fear; the phrase "Act always out of strength, never out of weakness" would not be a bad formulation of my moral code.

Well, of course God never changed. Most of this is something neither I nor any other traditional Christian would disagree with. I would take issue with the phrase 'mankind grew up emotionally'. Mankind does not grow up emotionally. We see an increasing development in the sophistication and subtlety of our concepts, but we all start out emotionally at step one. This is just confused. There is a difference between 'didn't sin' and 'couldn't sin'. Jesus could sin, but didn't. He was not at all an asexual teetotaler. We're told explicitly that he drank, and, while we're never told explicitly about his sex life, we know that he was "tempted in every way as we are", which must have included sexual temptations. You say later on "who never had any real human problems," but how can you say this? He was misunderstood by virtually everyone who knew him, even his closest friends. He was betrayed by one of his closest friends. All of his closest friends abandoned him in his hour of need. He had parents, who at times must have been frustrating to him, just as they are sometimes frustrating to us. Hardly. The notion that people sometimes do something wrong, and that when they do, they need to make up for it, has been around for 1000s of years, and with any luck will be around with us for 1000s more. The distinctly Christian notion is that life is not like a balance sheet, where the good things you do can balance out the bad things you do. You can't make up for the bad things you do; Kierkegaard uses the image of saying a spell backwards. That's why the sacrifice of Christ is necessary. Yeah, so do we. But doesn't this contradict your own point that Jesus didn't have any real human experiences?

Christians ....6

Lions ..........6

Tie break question please!

By the way .... what happened to his mum and ( earth bound ) dad ?

And the donkey ( really really )

OK guys.

I am really, really sorry that I posted the comment about 6 all. I kinda miss the discussion and the things that I have learnt from everyone. I even miss being labelled a fool by some ( for my views ).

But, I suppose that it's been done to death and we weren't getting anywhere with the thread - apart from heated and sustained arguement.

Do all threads die in such wimpery manner?

Most of the time.