[RooneyX]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
wow.

I believe the New Testament is w/o error and should be taken very literally. Now before you place my head on a chopping block it's important to remember some key things;

Nah, forget about the key things.

Victims of Christian torture were never given time to talk about the key things:

[ebuddy]

huh?

[ebuddy]

What you should forget is what man has done w/ God. Personally, I'm more concerned with what God will do with man.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Nah, forget about the key things.

Victims of Christian torture were never given time to talk about the key things:

You might like to see this ite which covers the New Testament very well. In fact, this page here even shows the evolution of Christ in artwork taking over from the old gods and philosophers such as Socrates and Apollo, going through a number of physical changes, eventually being depicted as a weak and suffering man centuries later:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html

Thanks for the laugh,

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Thanks for the laugh,

Denounce it with counter evidence. I'm bored, it's early, I didn't have a ciggy yet, and I need a laugh from you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Denounce it with counter evidence. I'm bored, it's early, I didn't have a ciggy yet, and I need a laugh from you.

That isn't evidence. That is opinion.

Highly misinformed one at that.

[Shaddim]

I drink alcohol, tell dirty jokes occasionally, wear an earing and listen to all kinds of music some of which does not necessarily uplift my beliefs.

Drinking isn't anti-Christian, getting drunk and losing your witts is.

Wearing an earring isn't, that belief (IMO) is just silly.

Listening to music is just that, you're not acting out the bad things in the songs, just experiencing the artist's views.

Telling dirty jokes... ok, that's not very "uplifting" in regards to your soul, in regards to Jesus' teachings. Though, he did kinda tell an off-color joke in the NT.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

Paraphrasing according to that day's meanings...

"You married?"
"No."
"Yeah, I can tell. (Because she wasn't wearing a wedding shawl, though she was obviously dressed well for a lady her age) When are you going to stop sleeping around to make ends meet? It's not good.
"No sh#t Sherlock, how else is a woman supposed to get by?"

[ZackS]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I believe the New Testament is w/o error and should be taken very literally.

You say this but then go on to disprove your own point. How can you say the New Testament is without error when two people can read the book and come to polar opposite conclusions? The book is flawed because the art of language is flawed and the art of translation is flawed. Even the clearest of ideas can be interpreted differently. And keep in mind, the bible says a whole lot of things, many of which are contradictory. The devil could cite scripture for his purpose.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The Bible should be taken literally. (if you agree to take it at all that is and that's of course entirely up to you.) I personally am working very hard to not be "luike-warm". While that is generally most comfortable, I'm not sure we're supposed to be so comfortable all the time. I believe comfort begets complacency, complacency hinders growth and if you're not growing-you're dieing. Again; IMHO.

If a section of the bible feels wrong to you, if some of the moral framework seems fundamentally flawed, by all means reject it! I can sense even in such a cheery post your inner turmoil with religion. You want to accept it word for word, you want the answers to be easy but in many cases they just aren't! If you can accept that the word of God has been muddied by the agenda of man, then you'll be much happier in your faith.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
We are not put here to judge other people or be intolerant. Judgement can and will only rightly occur by the Highest Judge. We are put here to be examples of Godliness. "a light that shines". We cannot be shining lights by dragging homosexuals through streets with their heads tied off at the wheelwell or telling slanted jokes with snake-like tongues. We cannot be lights that shine while we're lighting up that cocktail to throw into the abortion clinic. Whether you're Catholic or not (which I'm not) Mother Theresa is probably the closest example we have ever had to Godliness.

That was Jesus' basic message. The problem is that it's contradicted too many times to count. When you read the bible, you're NOT reading God's word, you're reading man's word. (literally and figuratively). Reading the bible is like watching Fox News.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The Bible when taken literally reminds us of just how human we are. Humans, when left to our own devices do not improve, we degrade. Utiopia among humans cannot exist. We can only try. This does not happen by coercian and Christians of our past have really screwed that one up! Man will generally always fall short of Godliness, this is what I believe Heaven is all about. The Bible should serve to those who believe it as a reminder that we need God to live Godly lives. That means Christians can make mistakes just like anyone else.

I agree, but what you said goes directly against your point. Without religion, humans tend to make the most advances! How could religious people possibly shoot down Darwin's theory of evolution?! That was a breakthrough! Why did Galileo get his eyes stabbed out? Religion. Why was Socrates put to death? Religion. Crusades? Salem Witch trials? The Holocoust? 9/11? Israel and Palestine? The Spanish Inquisition? Left to his own devices, man might have less to misinterpret to justify hate. Wasn't your point that the bible was perfect and should be taken literally?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I just wanted to make sure Christians were represented from something other than knee-jerk anger, misinformation, guilt, and persecution. These are the things that I believe hinder someone from searching the inerrant word of God.

And for that you're a good person. I just think you're misguided and a bit too in to blind faith.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't evidence. That is opinion.

Highly misinformed one at that.

Haha. So historical records mean nothing then.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Haha. So historical records mean nothing then.

You can piece anything together how you wish to come up with the outcome you want.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You can piece anything together how you wish to come up with the outcome you want.

Do it then. Piece something together right now that goes against the grain of what that webpage says. That site only reflects the opinion of what I've read historians write in books for years. I've never seen it refuted, only carefully planned quips like what you're doing now.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
You might like to see this ite which covers the New Testament very well. In fact, this page here even shows the evolution of Christ in artwork taking over from the old gods and philosophers such as Socrates and Apollo, going through a number of physical changes, eventually being depicted as a weak and suffering man centuries later:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html

That site simply proves how badly Hellenism damaged Jesus' identity. We can all thank Paul for that. Stick with the Middle Eastern Christian Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian, Byzantine, Meronite, etc.) representations, they're much more accurate.

And as far as "Christian torture", that was done by the Roman Church... hell, they even killed Copts and other Orthodox Christians in their crusades. The RC, in that era, wasn't "Christian"... in some ways, it's even difficult to classify them in that capacity today.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Do it then. Piece something together right now that goes against the grain of what that webpage says. That site only reflects the opinion of what I've read historians write in books for years. I've never seen it refuted, only carefully planned quips like what you're doing now.

I did, in just one paragraph. Read above post. ^^^

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That site simply proves how badly Hellenism damaged Jesus' identity. We can all thank Paul for that. Stick with the Middle Eastern Christian Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian, Byzantine, Meronite, etc.) representations, they're much more accurate.

Oh, so why not Islam then? Why not the Nag Hammadi scrolls then? They both say Jesus never was crucified and that Simon of Cyrene, who did carry the cross according to the Gospels, took his place.

Who are you to pick and choose which one is right? If you agree that Hellenism and other cults superimposed themselves on this history then you must be aware that resurrection cults and solar deity worship makes up a large portion of Christian belief, surely?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

And as far as "Christian torture", that was done by the Roman Church... hell, they even killed Copts and other Orthodox Christians in their crusades. The RC, in that era, wasn't "Christian"... in some ways, it's even difficult to classify them in that capacity today.

Ah, and what happened at Salem? And in the present day some general spouting off that the adversary is led by Satan is not the same thing? There's a man with a finger on the red button torturing people in the name of Christianity today. He might not fully admit it but it's written on his face.

Christians and Muslims will keep this fight going until they evict God, Jesus and Muhammed from cranial tenancy and start thinking rationally. Otherwise this is going to be a long haul and will take generations more.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Oh, so why not Islam then? Why not the Nag Hammadi scrolls then? They both say Jesus never was crucified and that Simon of Cyrene, who did carry the cross according to the Gospels, took his place.

ONE writer out of some 40 writers represented in those Coptic texts said that Jesus wasn't crucified. One. In-depth study of the writing styles reveals that that one author is the source of all the discord regrading Jesus' execution. He obviously had some personal gripe.

Who are you to pick and choose which one is right? If you agree that Hellenism and other cults superimposed themselves on this history then you must be aware that resurrection cults and solar deity worship makes up a large portion of Christian belief, surely?

I'm educated enough to make those choices for myself in regard to my personal views. I feel comfortable with that. If you studied Semitic theological beliefs as much as Roman and Greek (represented in Hellenism), you'd see there are quite a few differences between them. Some ideas are the same, but that's the whole idea behind archetypes, IMO.

Ah, and what happened at Salem? And in the present day some general spouting off that the adversary is led by Satan is not the same thing? There's a man with a finger on the red button torturing people in the name of Christianity today. He might not fully admit it but it's written on his face.

Christians and Muslims will keep this fight going until they evict God, Jesus and Muhammed from cranial tenancy and start thinking rationally. Otherwise this is going to be a long haul and will take generations more.

That's a gripe with Fundamentalism itself, not Christianity. Everything else is your opinion and a personal gripe.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

That's a gripe with Fundamentalism itself, not Christianity. Everything else is your opinion and a personal gripe.

Ad hominem. What created the fundamentalism? Such extremity can only exist if an ideology is flawed.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If you studied Semitic theological beliefs as much as Roman and Greek (represented in Hellenism), you'd see there are quite a few differences between them. Some ideas are the same, but that's the whole idea behind archetypes, IMO.

Matter of fact I'm fully studied in Western Asiatic mythology and not in Roman and Greek.

if you were versed in it all you'd know the term 'Semitic' is wrong in the first place.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Ad hominem. What created the fundamentalism? Such extremity can only exist if an ideology is flawed.

Man's ego created Fundamentalism, and his desire to control others. Don't blame all Theologolgical systems just because of Fundamentalism's deficiency. Theological ideology isn't flawed, it's man's representation of it in some capacities.

Matter of fact I'm fully studied in Western Asiatic mythology and not in Roman and Greek.

Then you should know better than to lump Greco-Roman structures with Jesus' teachings. There's quite a bit of variance and you're doing it just to be argumentative.

if you were versed in it all you'd know the term 'Semitic' is wrong in the first place.

"My classifications are better than yours." Oh brother. There's a reason why I didn't make reference to all Western Oriental ideology. Since we're talking about Jesus, I'm being specific in regards to spectific tribes and peoples.

[ZackS]

MacNStein, I respect your point of view and I never really set out to question it. Zimphire and Super Chic[k]en seem to be MIA though Perhaps because it is one argument in which the questions are so pointed they're impossible to avoid. They'd have to make a concession or not post. I guess their egos are far more fragile than their beliefs.

Truthfully, spiritual answers are just as valid as scientific in some key areas but reading the bible literally like they do is wrong.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ZackS:
MacNStein, I respect your point of view and I never really set out to question it. Zimphire and Super Chic[k]en seem to be MIA though Perhaps because it is one argument in which the questions are so pointed they're impossible to avoid. They'd have to make a concession or not post. I guess their egos are far more fragile than their beliefs.

Truthfully, spiritual answers are just as valid as scientific in some key areas but reading the bible literally like they do is wrong.

Some texts are to be read literally, as was the authors' intent. Others, however, aren't. In fact, some writings, if taken in a completely literal sense, do an injustice to the reader and the subject matter.

However, I don't see the harm unless that person then tries to persecute others because of those beliefs. That's the truth regardless of which ideology is envolved.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by ZackS:
MacNStein, I respect your point of view and I never really set out to question it. Zimphire and Super Chic[k]en seem to be MIA though Perhaps because it is one argument in which the questions are so pointed they're impossible to avoid. They'd have to make a concession or not post. I guess their egos are far more fragile than their beliefs.

Truthfully, spiritual answers are just as valid as scientific in some key areas but reading the bible literally like they do is wrong.

Neither one of them reads it literally. When do you feel like you need to tell people they do. Both Zimphire and SC believe the bible contains history, parables, symbolism, allegory, and metaphors. Neither one states he believes the bible completely literally.

Don't try to project a belief onto them they do not hold.

Oh, maybe they aren't MIA, maybe, just maybe, they are doing something other than reading this forum right now.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

Then you should know better than to lump Greco-Roman structures with Jesus' teachings. There's quite a bit of variance and you're doing it just to be argumentative.

What variance? I can lump Greco-Buddhist, Roman and Egyptian mythology together with Christianity and Islam. There's very clear relational composites. To not see that means one simply hasn't studied it or doesn't wish to see it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
What variance? I can lump Greco-Buddhist, Roman and Egyptian mythology together with Christianity and Islam. There's very clear relational composites. To not see that means one simply hasn't studied it or doesn't wish to see it.

Of course there are similarities, they're references to archetypes. Any blind first-year philosophy student can see the relationships. The real value is in the differences, and in those differences a person will find their own way. If they choose to accept it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Zimphire and Super Chic[k]en seem to be MIA though Perhaps because it is one argument in which the questions are so pointed they're impossible to avoid.

No, there is just no use to discuss with you. No matter what I say to you, you aren't going to believe. Your mind is already made up. That is on you.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Of course there are similarities, they're references to archetypes. Any blind first-year philosophy student can see the relationships. The real value is in the differences, and in those differences a person will find their own way. If they choose to accept it.

So you're not denying that it's derivative mythology like those 13 who voted for religious literalism? Because otherwise I'm confusing you with others.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
So you're not denying that it's derivative mythology like those 13 who voted for religious literalism? Because otherwise I'm confusing you with others.

They're Archetypes. IMO, real and viable "beings". However, there are differences in how these aspects are venerated according to each culture. Michael the Archangel = Apollo = Helios = Balder = Shamash = Utu etc.

FYI, I voted #2. Though, in truth, my views are a mix of literal and figurative interpretations. I look at each individual idea and decide based on my study and experience whether to take it literally or not.

[TampaDeveloper]

Not that it matters, but just so everybody is clear on the terms;

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Some really good points brought up in previous responses. I think theres good and bad in all "groups" of people. So its really ironic that, as someone above mentioned, Protestants and Catholics are so bitter towards each other since both groups of people believe that Jesus said, "You will be judged as you judge others."

Anyhow, I don't care if people are athiest, agnostic, Muslim, Christian, or Jewish... I've been more than one of the above and its all good if you're a good person. Its clear to me that there's lots of logically and philosophically sound ways to come to any of the aforementioned conclusions.

Oooh, another thing is that I think its important to seek God in every way you can. Often times Christians are discouraged from reading books from the "enemy." But I really think the most important thing is to have a well thought out point of view... One that is consistent and honest.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
They're Archetypes. IMO, real and viable "beings". However, there are differences in how these aspects are venerated according to each culture. Michael the Archangel = Apollo = Helios = Balder = Shamash = Utu etc.

FYI, I voted #2. Though, in truth, my views are a mix of literal and figurative interpretations. I look at each individual idea and decide based on my study and experience whether to take it literally or not.

Archetypes are also manmade, used throughout mythology and in story telling throughout the ages, in movies today for example.

Gabriel - Thoth

You find EXACT stories between both. The birth story used by Matthew, almost identical to the birth story used for Amenhotep III.

The birth story in Luke is completely different, BUT almost identical to the birth story of Krishna and Balaram and other divine twin stories.

The story of David. The guy can't be found in any historical text of the period he is supposed to have lived in. But his story is too similar to that of an Egyptian pharaoh who ruled the same region - Tuthmosis III. Tuthmosis is a Greek transliteration, the Egyptian is Djehuty-mes. Djehut is the Egyptian form of Hebrew DWD or Arabic Dawood.

Solomon. Same. But the events of his life are the same as an Egyptian pharaoh again, Amenhotep III (but this guy also claims a Christ like birth). The description of his temple, his wives, his relations with other nations, his reluctance to go to war earning him the monicker 'peaceful one'. All there. Amenhotep was even patriarch of Uru-salim -> Jerusalem.

You see, the Bible takes a lot of legends and stories and rewrites them for what were new cultures, first Jewish, then Christian. Every time a new culture or religion is formed by people., not deities, they redefine themselves by redefining the stories they grew up with.

But that was then. Theocracies relied on myths to build identity and solidarity. We don't have that today. Neither should we need it or want it because one new religion or theocracy will result in another, and they will eventually come into conflict the way Christianity and Islam did.

Is it that hard to agree that we must learn from the past to prevent the errors of the past from repeating themselves? We must end this literalism and blind belief, otherwise why are you having children? To impress your neighbours or so your wife will stay with you? Or do you actually care what will happen when you shuffle off this earth? Not many people do. They say they do but they're only interested in this existence and don't give a damn what happens later.

And it's those self-absorbed people who tend to hate liberalism, atheism or anything non-religious. They need religion because of their guilt complex. They're leaving **** behind for the kids and grandkids and think religion will save them and redeem them. No, mate. The afterlife is what you leave behind for the rest of us.

Anyway, the literalist mob have been clearly outvoted. In another thread the challenge was made that non-religious people have no tolerance. This poll proved the opposite. Where are those non-religious people showing intolerence in religion threads? They don't make their voices heard but the poll suggests they are there. But that minority of religious folk certainly do make their voices heard and gang up on the very few non-religious who do speak up.

The conclusion then is that the religious Taliban on this forum have no tolerance even though they profess to. The results of the poll prove this.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Neither one of them reads it literally. When do you feel like you need to tell people they do. Both Zimphire and SC believe the bible contains history, parables, symbolism, allegory, and metaphors. Neither one states he believes the bible completely literally.

Don't try to project a belief onto them they do not hold.

Actually, SC and Zim have both stated the exact opposite on several occasions. I remember SC made a post a while back denouncing all liberal christians who think of the bible as fun stories to live by and said something to the effect of "Their lives are empty" because they don't take the literal word. From his posts, I get the feeling that Zim is slightly more moderate but both or 'em are crazy. I'd have linkage but the search function here is terrible.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, there is just no use to discuss with you. No matter what I say to you, you aren't going to believe. Your mind is already made up. That is on you.

O rly?

[Zimphire]

What the Bible literally says I take literally.

But there are stories in it used at teachings also.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What the Bible literally says I take literally.

But there are stories in it used at teachings also.

Of course, I understand that you do have a brain! The parables in the bible are stories to live by, the bible says so its self. I'm talking about things like the creation story, etc. Those should not be interpreted literally.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Of course, I understand that you do have a brain! The parables in the bible are stories to live by, the bible says so its self. I'm talking about things like the creation story, etc. Those should not be interpreted literally.

Depends on what you mean by literally.

A lot was very "poetic" but the story it was telling was based on thruth IMHO.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Of course, I understand that you do have a brain! The parables in the bible are stories to live by, the bible says so its self. I'm talking about things like the creation story, etc. Those should not be interpreted literally.

Parables are NOT stories to live by.

Matthew 13:10-15 NIV
"The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: _"though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: _" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'"

If you do not believe, then you can not understand Jesus's parables.

[simonjames]

I love the selectivity of religious people when it comes to interpreting the bible. On some chapters (such as condemning sodomy as a sin) they choose to go the whole hog whereas other chapters (like Leviticus) they choose to conveniently ignore.

Do me a favour people - do yourselves a favour - listen to "imagine" by John Lennon - read the words and have a think.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Archetypes are also manmade, used throughout mythology and in story telling throughout the ages, in movies today for example.

Gabriel - Thoth

You find EXACT stories between both. The birth story used by Matthew, almost identical to the birth story used for Amenhotep III.

The birth story in Luke is completely different, BUT almost identical to the birth story of Krishna and Balaram and other divine twin stories.

The story of David. The guy can't be found in any historical text of the period he is supposed to have lived in. But his story is too similar to that of an Egyptian pharaoh who ruled the same region - Tuthmosis III. Tuthmosis is a Greek transliteration, the Egyptian is Djehuty-mes. Djehut is the Egyptian form of Hebrew DWD or Arabic Dawood.

Solomon. Same. But the events of his life are the same as an Egyptian pharaoh again, Amenhotep III (but this guy also claims a Christ like birth). The description of his temple, his wives, his relations with other nations, his reluctance to go to war earning him the monicker 'peaceful one'. All there. Amenhotep was even patriarch of Uru-salim -> Jerusalem.

You see, the Bible takes a lot of legends and stories and rewrites them for what were new cultures, first Jewish, then Christian. Every time a new culture or religion is formed by people., not deities, they redefine themselves by redefining the stories they grew up with.

But that was then. Theocracies relied on myths to build identity and solidarity. We don't have that today. Neither should we need it or want it because one new religion or theocracy will result in another, and they will eventually come into conflict the way Christianity and Islam did.

Is it that hard to agree that we must learn from the past to prevent the errors of the past from repeating themselves? We must end this literalism and blind belief, otherwise why are you having children? To impress your neighbours or so your wife will stay with you? Or do you actually care what will happen when you shuffle off this earth? Not many people do. They say they do but they're only interested in this existence and don't give a damn what happens later.

And it's those self-absorbed people who tend to hate liberalism, atheism or anything non-religious. They need religion because of their guilt complex. They're leaving **** behind for the kids and grandkids and think religion will save them and redeem them. No, mate. The afterlife is what you leave behind for the rest of us.

Anyway, the literalist mob have been clearly outvoted. In another thread the challenge was made that non-religious people have no tolerance. This poll proved the opposite. Where are those non-religious people showing intolerence in religion threads? They don't make their voices heard but the poll suggests they are there. But that minority of religious folk certainly do make their voices heard and gang up on the very few non-religious who do speak up.

The conclusion then is that the religious Taliban on this forum have no tolerance even though they profess to. The results of the poll prove this.

You call it myth, I call it a perpetuation of Archetypes. Said Archetypes pre-exist man and offer themselves as guides towards man's development. The difference between us is that I've had contact with those beings and you haven't. IMO, leaving yourself closed to the possibility of being able to make contact with them puts you at a disadvantage. The good news is, I think you'll have several more lifetimes to figure that out.

The polls prove that non-religous people have opinions, nothing more. Who cares what the "vote" is, think it will change anyone's views? Not hardly. You can spout your retoric til the cows come home, it won't make anyone with faith lose said faith. It just shows how intolerant you are of others' beliefs by shoving your views down their throats... that means you're no better than anyone else. Congrats.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by simonjames:
I love the selectivity of religious people when it comes to interpreting the bible. On some chapters (such as condemning sodomy as a sin) they choose to go the whole hog whereas other chapters (like Leviticus) they choose to conveniently ignore.

Do me a favour people - do yourselves a favour - listen to "imagine" by John Lennon - read the words and have a think.

"Imagine" yourself being tolerant of people with religious views. You can only change yourself.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
I love the selectivity of religious people when it comes to interpreting the bible. On some chapters (such as condemning sodomy as a sin) they choose to go the whole hog whereas other chapters (like Leviticus) they choose to conveniently ignore.

Do me a favour people - do yourselves a favour - listen to "imagine" by John Lennon - read the words and have a think.

Yes, because Lennon had it going on more than Jesus.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by simonjames:
[...] listen to "Imagine" by John Lennon - read the words and have a think.

Yes: a peaceful revolution would definitely be a good thing!

BTW, Lennon IMO represented rather well the last contemporary idealistic era ('60s/'70s of last century) before us - Jesus, OTOH, represented an era with societies which are rather obsolete (albeit some of their values and "disvalues" still exist), in today's context.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, because Lennon had it going on more than Jesus.

Yup

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Yup

In 100 years people will barely remember the guy.

Give him 2000 years and he will be a forgotten memory.

Lennon was a good musician. That was about it.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
In 100 years people will barely remember the guy.

Give him 2000 years and he will be a forgotten memory.

Lennon was a good musician. That was about it.

And Jesus was only remembered because some Wops created a godman figure for people to worship because secularism under the Roman Empire wasn't working.

I always find it amusing how you who hate humanism and secularism also support rightwing government. The empire's not working, mate. And this time a new religion and history rewritten won't work.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
And Jesus was only remembered because some Wops created a godman figure for people to worship because secularism under the Roman Empire wasn't working.

I always find it amusing how you who hate humanism and secularism also support rightwing government. The empire's not working, mate. And this time a new religion and history rewritten won't work.

Then I suppose the millions of Byzantine, Coptic, Ethopian, Meronite, Syrian, Jacobite, Manchurian, etc. Christians, who weren't influenced by the <ethnic slur> and developed their own Theology/Christology independent of Rome and Hellenism, are just figments of the imagination?

BTW, do you commonly use ethnic slurs in casual conversation? It's rather unseemly and I'm sure some people of Italian descent would take offense at that.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Then I suppose the millions of Byzantine, Coptic, Ethopian, Meronite, Syrian, Jacobite, Manchurian, etc. Christians, who weren't influenced by the <ethnic slur> and developed their own Theology/Christology independent of Rome and Hellenism, are just figments of the imagination?

No, a lot of them drew on what was happening under the power of Rome and also the various messianic anti-Roman movements throughout north Africa, Arabia, Judeo-Palestine and Syria. They all sprung up in different periods, not the same period. And what's more, when they did spring up many of them differed in beliefs.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

BTW, do you commonly use ethnic slurs in casual conversation? It's rather unseemly and I'm sure some people of Italian descent would take offense at that.

Yeah, I'm half Italian so I don't care. I'm also part Indian, Jewish, Greek and English and have an African foster sister. Most of the family grew up in Ireland too. Very diverse family, we enjoy mocking cultures without the vehemency of actual racists and religious literalists who haven't had much taste of different cultures.

So there. A humanist is the natural outcome of cultural collision, which is inevitable.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Yeah, I'm half Italian so I don't care. I'm also part Indian, Jewish, Greek and English and have an African foster sister. Most of the family grew up in Ireland too. Very diverse family, we enjoy mocking cultures without the vehemency of actual racists and religious literalists who haven't had much taste of different cultures.

So there. A humanist is the natural outcome of cultural collision, which is inevitable.

Anyone think of that Seinfeild episode where the guy converts to jewdism for the jokes?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Anyone think of that Seinfeild episode where the guy converts to jewdism for the jokes?

Why not, Jewish jokes are great. Not as good as English jokes though.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Why not, Jewish jokes are great. Not as good as English jokes though.

I'm not saying bad... I'm just saying.

Anyway right now I'm at bible college in Southern Manitoba... it's great cause you can make menonite jokes! Even if you're not a Menno!

Menno jokes are practically scottish jokes on instead of drinking, they don't dance and don't go to war. hehehe