[Railroader]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Nothing like Christians mocking other Christians.

You're right, I shouldn't have mocked Catholics. I shouldn't have mocked anyone.

Alas, he's not a christian, in my opinion/belief, not all Catholics are Christians. Lastly, I wasn't mocking Christians, I was mocking Catholics.

It was wrong and I apologize to all Catholics on this forum for my actions, they were wrong, and I ask you to forgive me.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, thank you for explaining what you meant. There is no doubt that the environment in which one is raised has a strong bearing on one's religion, but that doesn't mean that religion is exclusively a product of one's upbringing.

My point exactly, but chuckit doesn't get it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

My point exactly, but chuckit doesn't get it.

It seems like kind of a straw man tactic to argue against the idea that "religion is exclusively a product of one's upbringing." Design has already acknowledged in this thread that it isn't so, and I have never claimed it. The point is just that upbringing is generally the strongest factor in determining people's religion.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It seems like kind of a straw man tactic to argue against the idea that "religion is exclusively a product of one's upbringing."

Huh?!?! You are readingin into what I wrote what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Design has already acknowledged in this thread that it isn't so,

He did? What he said was "I think a better answer is because you were born into a Christian family or at some point formed a close association with Christian people who influenced you to believe as they do. The same goes for all faiths."

He's telling us all why we believe what we do.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

and I have never claimed it.

Didn't say you did, are you using a strawman?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The point is just that upbringing is generally the strongest factor in determining people's religion.

So, are you saying that was the original point of the thread? To tell us why we believe what we do and not "Why are you a Christian? ... Or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Jew?"

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, thank you for explaining what you meant. There is no doubt that the environment in which one is raised has a strong bearing on one's religion, but that doesn't mean that religion is exclusively a product of one's upbringing.

Children are programmed to learn from their parents. As a young human they will mimic the things they see. In later years, the environment still plays a role in molding them into what society would have them be, but they have more freedom than they do as younglings.

For example, my neighbor is a hockey player. When I got back from lunch today he was out in his driveway watching his 5ish year old pretend to play hockey. I see the kid out there every day mimicking what he sees at his dad's games.

[Big Mac]

I don't deny that to be the case, Lava Lamp. Many adults may be devoted to their respective religions only because of what they were taught to do and believe as children. That does not apply to all religious people, however.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You're right, I shouldn't have mocked Catholics. I shouldn't have mocked anyone.

Alas, he's not a christian, in my opinion/belief, not all Catholics are Christians. Lastly, I wasn't mocking Christians, I was mocking Catholics.

It was wrong and I apologize to all Catholics on this forum for my actions, they were wrong, and I ask you to forgive me.

We are Catholics, not Muslims. No need to apologize, we aren't thin skinned and insecure about our faith

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

We are Catholics, not Muslims. No need to apologize, we aren't thin skinned and insecure about our faith

Gotta respect you guys for that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Your persecution complex is clouding your understanding. I don't care in the slightest about you or your lifestyle.

I've very critical of Biblical inerrantists and Biblical literalists when they suggest that their religious views should guide public policies.

The Amish are among the most "extreme" religious group in the US, but they aren't shoving their religion on others, so they're fine with me; live and let live. Your typical "religious right" person is far less "extreme" religiously, but expect their views on gays, science education, or whatever to be implemented politically.

I've no interest in living in a theocracy. Don't drag your religion into politics and I won't make fun of your beliefs.

Of course you have excuses for such behavior, and then you lash out at me saying I have a "persecution complex" because of it. Why am I not surprised? I know your views make you feel superior to those who live by faith, it's common with the majority of neo-atheists I've met.

Man up and take responsibility for being a religion basher.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Obviously, I need to school you some.

Shaddim was attacking me directly in this post. So yes, it was directed at me. Apology accepted.

Yet, you still can't play nice with others. I was even kind enough to leave your name out of it, tut-tut.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Because God changed my heart. Seriously, that's the only way it can happen. To say I had any input into it is to be theologically wrong.

Nearly my entire family is NOT Christian. And over 50% label themselves as atheists. The couple of family members that are Christian became Christians after I became one. We get ridiculed at family gatherings often.

I associated and hung around with atheists before I became a Christian. I was not "peer pressured" into become a Christian. As a matter of fact, I was the guy peer pressuring Christians into becoming atheists. Basically, my story is that of a Saul who became a Paul if you will.

No one "led me to Christ" or convinced me of it. If you want to get nitpicky, I did have a copy of the Bible, but being as the Bible is the most printed text on Earth, most people have a couple copies.

I like you. Seriously, I don't want to muck in this thread too long, but this was very well said. My story is similar, but not exactly the same.

[lpkmckenna]

What the heck is a neo-atheist? Are there paleo-atheists too?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If a certain degree of surety is simply impossible in reality, why not forget that and call the highest possible level "sure"? That's what we usually do in practice when we're talking about mundane issues, isn't it?

Because, as this thread has demonstrated, there are people who believe that a certain degree of surety is impossible, and there are people who don't.

That seems like a hugely important distinction to me.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Alas, he's not a christian, in my opinion/belief, not all Catholics are Christians. Lastly, I wasn't mocking Christians, I was mocking Catholics.

I hope the continuing irony is not lost on you.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I hope the continuing irony is not lost on you.

I hope you'll stop taking my posts out of context.

[Chongo]

I saw Darryl Dawkins on Bill Maher on the 18th. He was hawking his book, "The Godless Delusion" Maher asked how sure he was there was not a god, he said 6.9 out of 7, or was it 9.9 out of 10. In any any case even he is not 100% sure.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, you wouldn't believe it anyways...

-t

turtle please try. It may expand my mind. I'm all for learning and if i am wrong, i will bow to it.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I can explain it easily. In the "little Apocalypse" of Mark 13, Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and his own "enthronement" in heaven "coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory." While the prior prediction is easy, the latter is hard to understand. What Mark is doing here is "repurposing" the Son of Man myth from Daniel to explain Jesus being raised to heaven instead of staying in Hades/Sheol.

You see, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that anyone died and went to heaven. Everyone went to Sheol at death (whether this was regarded as literal or allegorical is still uncertain). Mark's fundamental theology is: Jesus was raised to heaven to be with YHWH, and if you follow his teachings you too can be raised to be with YHWH. That's the meaning of the gospel of Mark. Mark's theology knows nothing of any "second coming."

The "second coming" idea comes from Paul. Paul, being the good Pharisee, knows that scriptural requirements of the Messiah (the Davidic dynasty restored, the goyim rulers being ousted, etc) were not fulfilled by Jesus in his lifetime, except the "awakening" of the dead, of which Jesus is the first. So he is expecting Jesus to return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophesies "sometime soon."

Mark and Paul knew each other; the story of their hostility is only briefly mentioned in Acts of the Apostles. Mark thought Paul's ideas were ridiculous, and he implicitly mocks them in his gospel: "beware the leaven of the Herodians and the Pharisees." Mark regards Paul's teaching as a corruption of Jesus' Kingdom of God message.

The most important thing to know about the New Testament is: each writer has his own theological agenda. There is no single, consistent theology. Later writers like Matthew and Luke make clumsy attempts to merge Mark and Paul's ideas, but the results are uneven and transparently inconsistent.

lpk I bow to all of that. you are right.

But I am talking about Jesus' ministry BEFORE his death. Not his followers, mainly Paul, who turned it from a religion of the coming of Gods kingdom to a religion of Jesus.

The thing is even if Jesus survived, his "prediction" never materialized in his let's say 100 year lifetime...

Jesus was an apocalyptical messiah who preached to get ready for the Kingdom of God to come soon and so far (2000 years) he's wrong.

for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 (New International Version)

am I wrong?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Jesus was an apocalyptical messiah who preached to get ready for the Kingdom of God to come soon and so far (2000 years) he's wrong.

for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 (New International Version)

am I wrong?

Sorta. First, Jesus' own opinions of the Day of the Lord were probably similar to contemporary Jews, but differing in how and why it would come about.

Jesus' own Kingdom of God message was not primarily about the Day of the Lord. It was about a radical change of mind and social attitudes. The Kingdom of God would be a Jewish society that stopped using purity laws and temple taxes to exploit the poor. It would treat everyone as co-creators with God toward a society of inclusion and radical justice. It would invite all people to the fellowship table first, and preach the righteous life at the fellowship table, instead of using righteousness as an exclusionary principle to keep outcasts from the fellowship. (Jesus would never have endorsed Paul's anathema rules. Some of that Pharisee leaven, there.)

Hence, the Day of the Lord would not be God purifying Israel with Divine Vengeance, but the coming of God because Israel had purified itself in anticipation. In other words, Jesus was not really an apocalyptic preacher at all, but a social reformer and moral teacher.

The little Apocalypse of Mark 13 was Mark putting words in Jesus' mouth to conjecture why Jerusalem was destroyed, and to link that with Jesus' execution. The historical Jesus never made such predictions.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I saw Darryl Dawkins on Bill Maher on the 18th. He was hawking his book, "The Godless Delusion" Maher asked how sure he was there was not a god, he said 6.9 out of 7, or was it 9.9 out of 10. In any any case even he is not 100% sure.

Who? What? Huh?

[Chongo]

Happy birthday to one of atheism great icons, Vladimir Lenin (born Vladimir Ulyanov)

[peeb]

By any measure, a great atheist, but hardly and icon of atheism.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Happy birthday to one of atheism great icons, Vladimir Lenin (born Vladimir Ulyanov)

Troll.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Who? What? Huh?

Chocolate Thunder.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Who? What? Huh?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You see, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that anyone died and went to heaven. Everyone went to Sheol at death (whether this was regarded as literal or allegorical is still uncertain).

That's not really true. There's Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 12:7, as one example. As another, the taking of Enoch and the taking of Eliyahu. Therefore, your theory about the Christian deity being cast as unique in that regard doesn't really hold much water. Generally speaking, I think that the poetic verses that speak of Sheol represent more of a fear of the grave among Jews of that era rather than a lack of belief that righteous souls would be rewarded after death. Judaism is a very humble religion that avoids speaking for God when it comes to matters that are out of mortal hands. There is also the concept of Yirat Shamayim (awe/fear of Heaven), which is an important and Godly attribute that steers people away from sinfulness - fear of divine judgment after death helps keep people on the right path.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

[IMG]snipperoo[/IMG]

That's not Darryl Dawkins.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's not really true. There's Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 12:7, as one example.

The spirit returning to God may refer to the breath of God that gives life, not the personal soul. I think the original Hebrew would shed more light.

As another, the taking of Enoch and the taking of Eliyahu. Therefore, your theory about the Christian deity being cast as unique in that regard doesn't really hold much water.

Enoch and Elijah were clearly regarded as exceptions, so righteous as to be suitable to be in God's own presence. Note that they couldn't be in Sheol because they didn't die.

Generally speaking, I think that the poetic verses that speak of Sheol represent more of a fear of the grave among Jews of that era rather than a lack of belief that righteous souls would be rewarded after death.

I didn't deny a judgement after death, which was a common belief during the Second Temple era. The good could expect eternity in the bosom of Abraham while the evil would be in flames, but both were in Sheol, not heaven.

[Chongo]

I thought there were two camps of belief, Sadducees and Pharisees, one group believed in the resurrection (Pharisees) and the other did not.

[lpkmckenna]

Also the Essenes, who were like hyper-Pharisees, and of course the Zealots. However, all these groups are more like political labels rather than religious groups.

We really don't know much about the Sadducees' actual beliefs, since we only have the opinions of their critics.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Happy birthday to one of atheism great icons, Vladimir Lenin (born Vladimir Ulyanov)

Ooooo, don't forget Pol Pot, his birthday is in a couple weeks.


thanks

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Happy birthday to one of atheism great icons, Vladimir Lenin (born Vladimir Ulyanov)

Atheism icon.

Most pathetic trolling attempt ever.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The spirit returning to God may refer to the breath of God that gives life, not the personal soul. I think the original Hebrew would shed more light.

It informs, but not in the manner you suggest. You'd have to get into a discussion of the parts of the soul - הָרוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ נְשָׁמָה. Without getting too technical, the word נֶפֶשׁ is translated as spirit, and heavenly beings possess it.

Enoch and Elijah were clearly regarded as exceptions, so righteous as to be suitable to be in God's own presence. Note that they couldn't be in Sheol because they didn't die.

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold in Jewish thought. If it were the case that only those who never died as they did would be the only ones to go to Heaven, then Moshe, who was far greater than they, would have not died, either.

I didn't deny a judgement after death, which was a common belief during the Second Temple era. The good could expect eternity in the bosom of Abraham while the evil would be in flames, but both were in Sheol, not heaven.

Without Jewish sources external to Tanakh I may not be able to prove it to your satisfaction; I can see how one only informed to the extent that you are could easily hold that view.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sorta. First, Jesus' own opinions of the Day of the Lord were probably similar to contemporary Jews, but differing in how and why it would come about.

Jesus' own Kingdom of God message was not primarily about the Day of the Lord. It was about a radical change of mind and social attitudes.

Have you ever read Paula Fredriksen? She (and lots of others) argues basically just what ironknee said - that Jesus was simply yet another one of the end-of-the-world-is-near preachers common during that time. Christianity as we know it was formed basically when it tried to explain why Jesus was wrong.

I prefer the Kingdom-of-God-as-liberal-social-values stuff, of course, but I wonder whether it's just us projecting our modern sensibilities and wishes onto Jesus to make him more cool and new-agey than he really was.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It informs, but not in the manner you suggest. You'd have to get into a discussion of the parts of the soul - הָרוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ נְשָׁמָה. Without getting too technical, the word נֶפֶשׁ is translated as spirit, and heavenly beings possess it.

I'll take your word for that.

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold in Jewish thought. If it were the case that only those who never died as they did would be the only ones to go to Heaven, then Moshe, who was far greater than they, would have not died, either.

I think a case could be made that Enoch was greater than Moses, particularly if legends like Enoch as Metatron were given credence. Regardless, my theory is about what early Christians thought about Jesus and the afterlife. The Petrine' doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell confirms that the early Christians believed the very nature of life beyond death was altered by Jesus. EDIT: Besides, the existence of a contradiction in a religious doctrine isn't really surprising.

Without Jewish sources external to Tanakh I may not be able to prove it to your satisfaction; I can see how one only informed to the extent that you are could easily hold that view.

What tiresome snarkery.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Have you ever read Paula Fredriksen? She (and lots of others) argues basically just what ironknee said - that Jesus was simply yet another one of the end-of-the-world-is-near preachers common during that time. Christianity as we know it was formed basically when it tried to explain why Jesus was wrong.

I prefer the Kingdom-of-God-as-liberal-social-values stuff, of course, but I wonder whether it's just us projecting our modern sensibilities and wishes onto Jesus to make him more cool and new-agey than he really was.

20 years ago, virtually all scholars regarded Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. With continued analysis of Q, Thomas, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the consensus has cracked along this issue. John Dominic Crossan (whose book God and Empire I just finished reading) is the vanguard of the anti-apocalyptic side. No, I haven't read Fredriksen yet.

I don't think Jesus could really be described as a liberal reformer. He was radically inclusive, but only of Jews as he was not a Hellenistic cosmopolitan. Jewish prostitutes were included while a Greek labourer would be excluded. And he was virulently anti-divorce. In his own mind, I suspect he was "turning back the clock" to a purer Mosaic law without Second Temple innovations (like ritual purity as a lifelong activity).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What tiresome snarkery.

I apologize for the indelicate phrasing of that sentence. I was pressed for time and wanted to get the post up but didn't have a better way of conveying the sentiment. You are obviously intelligent, knowledgeable and well versed in scripture, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was trying to say was that, the conclusion you hold is very reasonable, until you look closer at the text (the actual Hebrew) and sources external like the Talmud.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Happy birthday to one of atheism great icons, Vladimir Lenin (born Vladimir Ulyanov)

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ooooo, don't forget Pol Pot, his birthday is in a couple weeks.


thanks

and you know who's was Sunday (420 day)

[ebuddy]

snarkery.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I apologize for the indelicate phrasing of that sentence. I was pressed for time and wanted to get the post up but didn't have a better way of conveying the sentiment. You are obviously intelligent, knowledgeable and well versed in scripture, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. All I was trying to say was that, the conclusion you hold is very reasonable, until you look closer at the text (the actual Hebrew) and sources external like the Talmud.

No worries.

i just came back from the bookstore with some Biblical reading: Fredriksen's Jesus of Nazareth, Crossan's The Historical Jesus, and Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed. I'm starting to think a historical Jesus thread would be in order.

[design219]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

She (and lots of others) argues basically just what ironknee said - that Jesus was simply yet another one of the end-of-the-world-is-near preachers common during that time.

I like the way "The Life of Brian" portrayed that. All these "profits" and people so desperate to follow anyone and any thing.

Poor Brian.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by design219 

All these "profits"

Prophets?

[design219]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Prophets?

Haha. I think it's funnier my way. Or not.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Happy birthday to one of atheism great icons, Vladimir Lenin (born Vladimir Ulyanov)

I'd cast Michael Ironside as Lenin.



He'd be perfect

[Chongo]

who would you cast as Stalin?

Wilford Brimley?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

who would you cast as Stalin?

Wilford Brimley?

YouTube - Wilford Brimley - The Beetis

[Chinasaur]

This thread isn't about Christianity..this is an unholy thread with one purpose. To make one person, or group, feel superior and above another.

How sad for your to have posted the question in the first place You are truly lost.

1. Thou shalt not kill

Now go tell all those born again soldiers in Iraq to stop killing. And while you're at it, ship out yourself and be a peacemaker in Sadr City.

You're so all fired hot to show how holy you are?

Go show us big man.

[design219]

wtf?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chinasaur 

This thread isn't about Christianity..this is an unholy thread with one purpose. To make one person, or group, feel superior and above another.

How sad for your to have posted the question in the first place You are truly lost.

1. Thou shalt not kill

Now go tell all those born again soldiers in Iraq to stop killing. And while you're at it, ship out yourself and be a peacemaker in Sadr City.

You're so all fired hot to show how holy you are?

Go show us big man.

Ummmmmm............ Depending on which translation you use, you can find the first commandment written as either "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not commit murder." Considering as how in that same are of the Old Testament there were huge numbers of non Israelites killed by the almighty, I think the "murder" translation is more accurate.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chinasaur 

How sad for your to have posted the question in the first place You are truly lost.

[Chuckit]

Mister Rogers?

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Anyway, the idea that somebody is damned to Hell just because he doesn't currently believe in Christ is not exactly Biblical. Logic tells us, and the Bible agrees, that it's entirely within Christ's power to reveal himself to us and he'll do so in his own time. It also tells us that Jesus' sacrifice was for everybody, not just a certain special subset of people. And lastly, Christ explicitly warns us not to judge our fellow man in his place. So I think a Christian could quite honestly admit that he's not qualified to tell me where I'm going when I die.

I love this logic! Good post.

I am a Taoist, and I am so because it's a frame of mind, not a strict set of behaviours and customs that are modified generation after generation.