Thanks for the sacrifice.

With Christianity God's power is limited by one factor, that is because he chooses to give us free will. Because God loves us he wants us to have a choice if we follow him or not, in cleansing our sins and teaching us a lesson Jesus had to die. My point is that even though God is omnipotent, to give his gift of free will God must appreciate certain limitations.

Having said this i can find a few passages which show God is a) not all powerful and b) doesn't mind fucking with free will, although both from the OT (im much much more familiar with the Old Testament.)

 

It is good to see your arguments evolving!

 

people do live out mythology . some dramatize the details which essentially is rather playful and eccentric , even useful ... mmm ... to theyself .

 

It said in the Bible that Jesus would come and would die to save mankind. It shows how much God loves us, for Him to send His only son to die for us. Jesus predicts His death in Mark. This life is not ours, to be saved we must die - our life is in Heaven with Jesus for eternity. The death of Jesus shows that we too can be part of God's family once we die. That is what Jesus came to do and why He had to die.

 

"Bullshit" is not an argument. "Bullshit" is an admission that you simply have no deeper thoughts about whatever is being discussed. If that's what you want, well, then, good luck to you. But why discourage others from thinking deeply about this stuff? What are you so afraid of?

Or is it just more stupid, bitter, ignorant, hatred? Isn't that precisely what you are arguing against?

So, now you're against analytical thought? Are you suggesting intelligence is something else?

Despite the predictable tantrum, can I just suggest that your real issue is the destructive anti-intellectualism that is all-too-commonly mistaken for truly inspired practice?

If your negative obsession with . . . whatever you think Christianity is . . . makes you so miserable, then why do you continue to insist your thoughts alone are correct? What if you are wrong?

Why not take some time away from your thoughts about it. Consider the idea that, maybe, your thoughts are not the highest, definitive expression of . . . all of this. Why not let it be what it is?

What, if anything, do you know about those who live outside of your thoughts?

Apparently, you misunderstand the essential meaning, purpose and importance of myth.

Peace and Love

 

Which makes you all the more intelligent for not using 'analytical responses' when arguing about the SAME myth?

 

whether you think in archetypes or word-logic or an algebra of space - that's nice . sacrifice that which does not translate .

 

How so? The church celebrates the Eucharist with eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, because that is what He said at the Lord's Supper.

 

I don't know if you have never been inspired or if inspiration has left you, for that I am sorry. I only question why you deny all inspiration, and why you want others to believe as you do.

It isn't fair.

 

To be honest I hate it when people feel the need to criticise something that they play no part in! don't believe it - fine - but why make it so hard for others!

 

This post pretty much sums up in moving language the basis for my Christian faith. What about this strikes anyone as "bullshit"? Even if we were to assume the young man Varuna is referring to didn't exist, can we say it's just a "fairy tale" like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, that we should ignore, grow up, or get over and live more maturely--doing what?

Unlike Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, the postive example and teachings associated with Jesus are: (1) at least possible, and supported by some evidence, questionable or not; (2) far more detailed,extensive, and inspiring as moral truths. The question has been asked: Do nonbelievers feel the same way about Buddhism and Islam? I find it hard to believe that the Buddha was sired by a white elephant, shielded by a cobra, and tempted by Maya, or that the Prophet Mohammed really took a ride on a flying horse. Yet I find the basic moral wisdom of Buddhism and Islam to be obvious and compelling. Same with Christianity. I think inspirational examples and messages are useful and important. So what's the problem? What's more "realistic"? Sex? drugs? rock'n roll? Sensual pleasure? the Dow & Nasdaq? Wealth? Status? Power? War? Other worldly attachments? Better to be "Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" (J.S. Mill), and Jesus crucified than Herod or Caesar debauched.

 

But it's something. Admissible in court, for the jury to decide.

 

"I have NEVER told ANYONE to believe as I do"

Oh no? You sure do make it clear that if they follow a belief that you don't agree with, then they are fools. Tell me, if you aren't telling what others should believe in, then what are you doing?

Why do you always feel so compelled to belittle others beliefs in such a condescending manner. Your whole persona reeks of anti-religious angst; it shows up within your posts, within your signature, and even within your member profile.

You probably have your own retorts for me saved up somewhere, but I honestly don't care what you have to say, cause you sure as hell don't care about others viewpoints.

Even if all of my beliefs have been proved to be wrong, the one thing that would separate the two of us is your lack of class, kindness, and respect towards others - Logic cannot bring any of this to the fore of your persona.

Good day to you.

 

So we'll make it a bench trial, or better yet, an administrative hearing. The appropriate standards of proof are: non-arbitrary & capricious (i.e., not irrational), probable cause, substantial evidence--all less than courtroom proof, but provising a basis for "faith". Hearsay is admissible, leaving it to the decision maker to judge its probative value. But we should also call as witnesses people who claim to have experienced Jesus in their lives. By the way, I wouldn't say the Bible is "ALL" hearsay. Paul claims to have had a direct encounter with Jesus, albeit several years after the Lord's death.

 

If inspiration is not "divine" then what is it?

This is a very real question - What IS inspiration?

What I said was "I only question . . . why you want others to believe as you do."

Are you saying you do not want others to believe you? Are your posts nothing more than public catharsis?

True. But, by the same logic, if a pig is only a pig, then 1) only a pig is a pig and 2) it is not definitive proof of anything. A pig is not proof of whatever inexplicably negative beliefs you may have about farming.

A pig is not compelled (or able) to conform to anyone's skewed platonic ideal of porcine perfection (or perdition), a pig is not a millenia-old conversation concerning the most sublime truths about reality, and regardless of whether you realize this from a truly inspired or absolutely pedestrian point of view, a pig is not bullshit.

Of course, a pig IS a non-kosher animal . . . Jewish or not, no-one milks non-kosher animals.

Metaphors, allegories, parables, myths, why is one acceptable and another not acceptable? Why do you think the idea of a pig wearing a bow tie and spats is meaningful when the idea of a boat full of animals surviving a flood is not? The historical accuracy of either story is, of course, entirely irrelevant.

Yeah, ever the optimist, I keep thinking someday maybe I'll learn something.

Thank you Dave, that means a lot to me.

 

Man, I spent most of the morning thinking and writing about a metaphorical pig. How wacky is that?

 

Ok so yes, the Gospels were written such yeas after Jesus' death, the church may have fiddled the Bible to gain control, I can't remeber what else has been said....... but what is it that makes you so sure that the bible is heresay? Is there not even a little part of you that thinks ok maybe it was written as it was witnessed?

 

I guess I come at the issue from an entirely different direction. I didn't become a Christian because I was convinced by some logical argument or body of evidence that it was correct. I was drawn to it because the example and teachings of Jesus seemed to offer something very different from the secular world: nonjudgmental acceptance of everyone as worthy because they're human, not because of their wealth, status, power, beauty, etc.; unconditional love. Varuna gave us an eloquent picture of this amazing man, who aroused such hatred and contempt in certain circles then and now for practicing and preaching such simple, compelling, revolutionary truths. Do you take issue with the principles or example? Do we need eyewitnesses in order to believe that they're true? Do we need to stick our fingers in the wounds to realize how superior Jesus' values are to the values that we see on television, or exemplified by our business, political, and (sadly) religious leaders, including those who thump their bibles the loudest? What is it about Jesus or his message that deserves ridicule? To me, these truths are self-evident, whether or not there is any other evidence at all that there was such a man or that he taught what he is said to have taught. The legend is morally true, and good enough for me.

 

Yeah but whenever some one stumps you, you don't reply. You then make a new argument, often in a new thread and continue ranting until some one stumps you again and again you don't reply, this cycle will continue untill you're absolutley sure that you've learned nothing. So whats the point?

 

The bible clearly states who witnessed what. There are also many non-Christian writers to wrote about Jesus at that time........... Jospehus, Tacitus for example.

Also, many historians believe that the NT was written somewhere between 40 and 100AD - which you seem to agree with, they also agree that there is very little difference between what we read now and what was originally written. They can be confident about this through the sheer number of early manuscripts, although no copies of the original there are more than 24,000 early manuscript copies of the NT which are also very close in time to the originals.

What about other writings? Plato - only 7 copies found which were written 1200 later. Caesar - 10 copies and 1000 years later. Sophocles - 193 copies and 1400 years later. The NT - 24,000 copies and only 40-90 years later. If you have a problem with the NT then surely you must doubt the other works even more?

With regards to witnesses. To decide whether something is accurate or not, certain questions are asked - was the writer an eye witnesss? Was it published in the life time of the eyewitness? How soon after even were they written? Does the writer have a axe to grind? All seems ok so far! Only Luke is not an eye witness, but writes about what he has heard - all of which coincide with the other Gospels.

Could the writers be biased? Yes they were all Christian - but something must have happened to make them believe who Jesus was!