The Meaning of Life? (Serious)
- Thread starter Cue
- Start date
- Status
Maou-Shin Daioka said:
2. The first four books are as you describe. All after that, even though talk about Jesus, are mostly different. They talk about the lives of those who wrote them.
3. The New Testament is like an update. Some things changed, and aren't needed anymore. We obsiously can't just throw them away. The Old Testament is more of an archive of how things were back then.
Additionally, about the threat issue, neither of us are threatening you. That is a stereotype, and I wish you wouldn't pull that card out unless we do threaten you. Also, it isn't a threat. They aren't threatening to put you in Hell, but just informing you that you will if you don't do something as simple as believe. Some can be stubborn with their beliefs sometimes, so they have been known to get angry at people for disbelief. But let me assure you, I don't intend to yell this at you, as you have obviously already beened informed.
Joshthehedgehog
Member
Humans don't have that long of a term of memory. If there was no son of God (Jesus) then why did we spend over 2000 years writing words in the book and keep passing it on? If it was fake, I think we (in this case the people back then) would have stoped writting the book and carry on, eventualy forgeting about it. But they didn't now didn't they? The Bible kept being passed on and you wanna know why? Because it was the TRUTH!!!!
Maou-Shin Daioka
Member
Woah....I never said anyone threatened me here, I was referrring to something else, completely off topic.
Sorry that I canme off as being a crybaby or something.
And no, I'm not going to explain what the off topic reference was, because while I post this, I don't have the time.
EDIT: Oh, and the reason people were passing it on for over 2000 years is because nothing people had back then could explain phenomenons such as, why do people die, why does the sky thunder when there is lightning, and many other questions that are easily answered now because people look for answers themselves, not from a book. Look at the Romans, they had a god or goddess for just about everything. For good harvest, good rain, ect. They didn't have science there to explain most of those phenomenon that happened to them, so they just invented gods to explain what couldn't be explained scientifically then, because they lacked the resources to.
And some parts of the bible were either taken out, or edited, comepletely.
One example of this is that the Sabbath was celebrated on Saturday in the Jewish religion, but now it's on Sunday. Jesus made no proclamation that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Ever. So are you comitting a sin when you go to church on Sunday, or not? (Thi sis not to be used as a guilt trip in any way.)
Sorry that I canme off as being a crybaby or something.
And no, I'm not going to explain what the off topic reference was, because while I post this, I don't have the time.
EDIT: Oh, and the reason people were passing it on for over 2000 years is because nothing people had back then could explain phenomenons such as, why do people die, why does the sky thunder when there is lightning, and many other questions that are easily answered now because people look for answers themselves, not from a book. Look at the Romans, they had a god or goddess for just about everything. For good harvest, good rain, ect. They didn't have science there to explain most of those phenomenon that happened to them, so they just invented gods to explain what couldn't be explained scientifically then, because they lacked the resources to.
And some parts of the bible were either taken out, or edited, comepletely.
One example of this is that the Sabbath was celebrated on Saturday in the Jewish religion, but now it's on Sunday. Jesus made no proclamation that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Ever. So are you comitting a sin when you go to church on Sunday, or not? (Thi sis not to be used as a guilt trip in any way.)
Morph
Member
This religion-teacher thing... I don't know if it is the right term for it, because I am not english or american. The teacher I was talking about got a licence from the church to tell the classes more about our religion and compares it to other religions. For example our class had to interpret the whole genesis act where god created the world and I know that it says (briefly summed up), that the most fascinating thing about our religion is the freedom and the love god has given to us humans.BlueZero4 said:
About your first point. I might have expressed this a little bit confusing.
This was NOT referred to the Ten Commandments, but to other things that are written in the bible. For example there are stories of peoples who has been exterminated, just because they don't want to believe in god. This is not the picture of a benevolent, loving god, isn't it?Morph said:
Then there are rules like
that one, that forces you to kill homosexuells, because they act against god's will,
or that one where is written that it is not allowed to cook a goat child in his own mothers milk,
or that one where is written that god has a strong dislike of women in men's cloths or men in women's cloths...
And so on and so on and so on...
As for the "sin"-thing you seem to not have listen to my words...
Sins were used to structure the society and to prevent it from chaos, BUT the idea to devide everything of the world into good things and bad (sinful) things came from Zarathustra and not from god. Before the reforms there were just mentioned things god likes or dislikes to create rules, that help in the past situation.
Sin in its originally meaning just defines what is against god's will.
The whole "sexuallity is bad" and "abstinens is good" thing is an idea of Zarathustra, for example. No sexuell development would mean that there were no children... And god loves children as it is written in the bible. So you can see that there are contradictions because of this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that the existence of the prophet Jesus has been proofed. He was mentioned in some texts of persons who lived in this time. Actually there are roman texts out of this time which are mentioning the condemnation of a man "they call Christus". (Sueton:Claudius, 25,4 / Plinius:X.96, X.97 / Tacitus:The Annals,XV.44)Maou-Shin Daioka said:
And even in the Talmud the execution of Jesus is mentioned (Baraita Sanhedrin 43a).
But I think the historicans are still arguing about a few ones if they were truly written in this time...
Maou-Shin Daioka
Member
I've recieved more information on the subject of there being more than one saviour in history.
URL:http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106446
Now since I did not feel like typing all of this up, I pasted it from the URL.
If this somehow breaks the law, I'll delete it immediately.
The notion of a god-man named Jesus as saviour of humanity is central to Christianity. Jesus on the cross is the icon of Christianity. Jesus is considered the most holy man in the Christian tradition.
Without belief in Jesus, the Christian religion loses all justification for its existence. As such, it becomes of vital importance to examine what is claimed about the Biblical Jesus and to evaluate these claims. Compounding this ideological importance, recent events in theology like the Jesus Seminar have put into question the deeds of the Biblical Jesus.
What exactly does the Bible claim that Jesus did? The most striking feature of Jesus' life is the incredible scope of the miracles he is said to have participated in. He is claimed to have turned water into wine and materialized loaves and fishes to feed thousands after thousands, to have walked on water and tamed the storm, exorcised demons and cured the masses, and raised the dead; and he was publicly judged, crucified, and resurrected. He was born of a virgin, was entombed and rose from the dead after three days, and ascended to Heaven.
One problem of these claims is that they are far from original. All of Jesus' attributes and miracles were already present in earlier myths. Mithraism, a religion that co-existed with Christianity but began much earlier, is the best example of this. Mithra was born of a virgin, his birth was celebrated on December 25th, performed miracles with 12 disciples, held a last supper, resurrected after three days on the spring equinox, and ascended to Heaven.
Also, Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna (member of the Hindu trinity), Bacchus, Prometheus, Indra, and a great deal of other deities or legendary characters were born by virgin birth and shared many other attributes with Jesus. Empedocles was reported as preaching, curing illnesses, controlling the storms, and raising the dead. Dionysus had a last supper. Bacchus turned water into wine. Osiris died and was resurrected. And so on and so forth. In fact, some early Christians condemned the idea of the crucifixion because it was considered pagan!
These other myths are a strong indication of the origins of the Jesus myth, if it is indeed a myth. But if Jesus did exist, then these claims would be irrelevant. Therefore we must examine the evidence.
But the problem here is that there is no evidence. No contemporary evidence (let alone credible contemporary evidence) has ever been proposed for the existence of Jesus.
Even the Gospels are widely admitted to having been written after Jesus' death. According to the evidence we have within the text itself, the earliest gospel - the Gospel of Mark - was probably written between 70 and 75 CE, although Catholic sources claim the date was closer to 50 CE. Either way, it was clearly written after Jesus died, supposedly 33 CE.
As for historical sources, only one of them is reported to have been written during the first century - Josephus' "Antiquities", in 90-95 CE. His two short mentions of a man named Jesus who had disciples and did good works are under heavy controversy, and recently, the discovery of the probable original of "Antiquities" shows that one of the two passages was an interpolation. Even if all these objections are false, Josephus cannot be a contemporary source.
Thallus is also reported as having talked about the crucifixion of Jesus, but this is only known second-hand, and critics claim that he said nothing about Jesus.
Such a deafening silence on the existence of any other historical figures would be extremely suspicious. In the case of an earth-shaking messiah who raised the dead and fed the multitudes, clearly we should find masses of testimonies and evidence, but we find none. It is clearly an argument for the non-existence of Jesus.
But the clinching evidence is that even Christian leaders considered Jesus purely as a mythical figure and did not know anything about his life.
"In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus' life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history."
We may add that Paul himself didn't know about the virgin birth. In Romans 1:1-3, he claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was established as a descendant of David.
Considering all these facts, the truth is clear: there never was a Jesus who did these miracles and was resurrected. Jesus started as a myth and later became an object of worship. Regardless of whether we believe in God or not, the religion of Christianity, insofar as it is based on the existence of Jesus, is pure historical absurdity. The doctrine of Jesus' existence is a Big Lie (i.e. an absurdity repeated again and again to enforce belief).
Here is a short list of writers and historians who lived within the same century as the Jesus myth. Remember that of all these, only one (Josephus) is said to have written anything about it, and it is decried by most scholars as an interpolation :
Caius Suetonius, Josephus, Philo-Judæus, Seneca, Pliny Elder, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Pliny Younger, Tacitus, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Hermogones, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Appian, Phlegon, Phædrus, Valerius Maximus, Lucian, Pausanias, Florus Lucius, Quintius Curtius, Aulus Gellius, Dio Chrysostom, Columella Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Favorinus, Lysias, Pomponius Mela, Appion of Alexandria, Theon of Smyrna, Justus of Tiberias (Most of this information I find sketchy, but until I find any other evidence otherwise, I'm sticking with this.)
Numerous objections have been raised to such a radical conclusion. The most common one is, "Who would die for a lie?". If Jesus was a myth, then why did the early Christians sacrifice their lives to propagate his words? Why did Christianity persist if Jesus never existed?
Actually, a great number of people die for lies. If we look only at Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses die for their doctrine on blood transfusions, a doctrine which has no basis in Biblical facts.
Outside of Christianity, many cults have used suicide to die for their beliefs. The people of Heaven's Gate died for a lie. The people of Jonestown died for lies. People die because of charismatic leaders, attractive beliefs and social power, all things which have nothing to do with truth. The claim that no one would die for a lie is hypocrite at best.
This objection can be formulated in a more subtle manner. One can claim that Jesus cannot be a myth because the disciples would have known if it hadn't happen, and they wouldn't have died for an absurdity. This is a much stronger argument, but still unconvincing. People can believe things that are reported to have happened near them even if they are false. The Mormons are a good example of this.
Even today, urban legends about specific individuals propagate even though there are obviously people who would have been witnesses to the rumoured events. Besides, this objection would mean that the testimonies of all religions are automatically true, which is clearly unacceptable to the Christian.
The atheistic objection about the possibility of a human Jesus is much more interesting. Given that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist, they say, a human Jesus could have existed and inspired the myth.
There were plenty of godmen at the time of Jesus, and a great number of them were called Jesus. Only in the New Testament we have Jesus Bar Abbas (in later manuscripts called Barabbas) and Bar Jesus. Josephus identifies a few of these messiahs: Jesus son of Danmeus, Jesus son of Sapphias, Jesus son of Ananus, Jesus the high priest and son of Onias, Jesus son of Gamaliel, Jesus son of Gamala, Jesus son of Saphat, Jesus son of Thebuthus. Couldn't Jesus have been inspired by some of these messiahs?
The most obvious reply to this argument is that we went from a myth to a history, not the reverse. If a human Jesus existed, then the early Christian leaders would have started from those mundane events and built a myth around it. But they did precisely the reverse.
A more fundamental reply is the following: without the Bible, we have no definition of who Jesus was. The Bible is our only source to analyze the existence or non-existence of Jesus. Even if other Jesii did inspire the Jesus myth, it would be completely irrelevant to the fact that the Jesus character as portrayed in the Bible did not exist.
Furthermore, the Gospels contradict themselves on details of Jesus' life, thus making the very definition of Jesus dubious at best. In his book "Losing Faith In Faith", Dan Barker has an Easter Challenge, in which he asks Christians to submit a consistent report of Jesus' last day, according to the Gospels. No one has been able to complete that challenge. The Gospels contradict themselves on such basic things as who visited the tomb, whether it was opened or not, who was at the tomb, the people to whom Jesus appeared, how long he stayed, and where he ascended.
Easter itself is rooted in Pagan origins. The very name "Easter" comes from the pagan goddess "Eostre", the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxons. The bunny (Easter Bunny) was the sacrificial companion of Eostre. Lent, the "hot cross bun" and "Good Friday" are also pagan. The spring equinox had been celebrated long before Christianity existed. In the Mediterranean, at the same time than Christianity existed, the cult of Attis celebrated the spring equinox also.
"About 200 B.C. mystery cults began to appear in Rome just as they had earlier in Greece. Most notable was the Cybele cult centered on Vatican hill... Associated with the Cybele cult was that of her lover, Attis ([the older Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, or Orpheus under a new name). He was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection.....
Honestly, when I was done reading this, some of the information I wasn't aware of in here, astounded me.
I would like everyone to read this rather...lengthy article, and say what you feel on it, be honest.
As I have stated again, if this information I pasted is breaking the law, I'll remove it immediately.
Thank You.
URL:http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106446
Now since I did not feel like typing all of this up, I pasted it from the URL.
If this somehow breaks the law, I'll delete it immediately.
The notion of a god-man named Jesus as saviour of humanity is central to Christianity. Jesus on the cross is the icon of Christianity. Jesus is considered the most holy man in the Christian tradition.
Without belief in Jesus, the Christian religion loses all justification for its existence. As such, it becomes of vital importance to examine what is claimed about the Biblical Jesus and to evaluate these claims. Compounding this ideological importance, recent events in theology like the Jesus Seminar have put into question the deeds of the Biblical Jesus.
What exactly does the Bible claim that Jesus did? The most striking feature of Jesus' life is the incredible scope of the miracles he is said to have participated in. He is claimed to have turned water into wine and materialized loaves and fishes to feed thousands after thousands, to have walked on water and tamed the storm, exorcised demons and cured the masses, and raised the dead; and he was publicly judged, crucified, and resurrected. He was born of a virgin, was entombed and rose from the dead after three days, and ascended to Heaven.
One problem of these claims is that they are far from original. All of Jesus' attributes and miracles were already present in earlier myths. Mithraism, a religion that co-existed with Christianity but began much earlier, is the best example of this. Mithra was born of a virgin, his birth was celebrated on December 25th, performed miracles with 12 disciples, held a last supper, resurrected after three days on the spring equinox, and ascended to Heaven.
Also, Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna (member of the Hindu trinity), Bacchus, Prometheus, Indra, and a great deal of other deities or legendary characters were born by virgin birth and shared many other attributes with Jesus. Empedocles was reported as preaching, curing illnesses, controlling the storms, and raising the dead. Dionysus had a last supper. Bacchus turned water into wine. Osiris died and was resurrected. And so on and so forth. In fact, some early Christians condemned the idea of the crucifixion because it was considered pagan!
These other myths are a strong indication of the origins of the Jesus myth, if it is indeed a myth. But if Jesus did exist, then these claims would be irrelevant. Therefore we must examine the evidence.
But the problem here is that there is no evidence. No contemporary evidence (let alone credible contemporary evidence) has ever been proposed for the existence of Jesus.
Even the Gospels are widely admitted to having been written after Jesus' death. According to the evidence we have within the text itself, the earliest gospel - the Gospel of Mark - was probably written between 70 and 75 CE, although Catholic sources claim the date was closer to 50 CE. Either way, it was clearly written after Jesus died, supposedly 33 CE.
As for historical sources, only one of them is reported to have been written during the first century - Josephus' "Antiquities", in 90-95 CE. His two short mentions of a man named Jesus who had disciples and did good works are under heavy controversy, and recently, the discovery of the probable original of "Antiquities" shows that one of the two passages was an interpolation. Even if all these objections are false, Josephus cannot be a contemporary source.
Thallus is also reported as having talked about the crucifixion of Jesus, but this is only known second-hand, and critics claim that he said nothing about Jesus.
Such a deafening silence on the existence of any other historical figures would be extremely suspicious. In the case of an earth-shaking messiah who raised the dead and fed the multitudes, clearly we should find masses of testimonies and evidence, but we find none. It is clearly an argument for the non-existence of Jesus.
But the clinching evidence is that even Christian leaders considered Jesus purely as a mythical figure and did not know anything about his life.
"In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus' life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history."
We may add that Paul himself didn't know about the virgin birth. In Romans 1:1-3, he claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was established as a descendant of David.
Considering all these facts, the truth is clear: there never was a Jesus who did these miracles and was resurrected. Jesus started as a myth and later became an object of worship. Regardless of whether we believe in God or not, the religion of Christianity, insofar as it is based on the existence of Jesus, is pure historical absurdity. The doctrine of Jesus' existence is a Big Lie (i.e. an absurdity repeated again and again to enforce belief).
Here is a short list of writers and historians who lived within the same century as the Jesus myth. Remember that of all these, only one (Josephus) is said to have written anything about it, and it is decried by most scholars as an interpolation :
Caius Suetonius, Josephus, Philo-Judæus, Seneca, Pliny Elder, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Pliny Younger, Tacitus, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Hermogones, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Appian, Phlegon, Phædrus, Valerius Maximus, Lucian, Pausanias, Florus Lucius, Quintius Curtius, Aulus Gellius, Dio Chrysostom, Columella Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Favorinus, Lysias, Pomponius Mela, Appion of Alexandria, Theon of Smyrna, Justus of Tiberias (Most of this information I find sketchy, but until I find any other evidence otherwise, I'm sticking with this.)
Numerous objections have been raised to such a radical conclusion. The most common one is, "Who would die for a lie?". If Jesus was a myth, then why did the early Christians sacrifice their lives to propagate his words? Why did Christianity persist if Jesus never existed?
Actually, a great number of people die for lies. If we look only at Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses die for their doctrine on blood transfusions, a doctrine which has no basis in Biblical facts.
Outside of Christianity, many cults have used suicide to die for their beliefs. The people of Heaven's Gate died for a lie. The people of Jonestown died for lies. People die because of charismatic leaders, attractive beliefs and social power, all things which have nothing to do with truth. The claim that no one would die for a lie is hypocrite at best.
This objection can be formulated in a more subtle manner. One can claim that Jesus cannot be a myth because the disciples would have known if it hadn't happen, and they wouldn't have died for an absurdity. This is a much stronger argument, but still unconvincing. People can believe things that are reported to have happened near them even if they are false. The Mormons are a good example of this.
Even today, urban legends about specific individuals propagate even though there are obviously people who would have been witnesses to the rumoured events. Besides, this objection would mean that the testimonies of all religions are automatically true, which is clearly unacceptable to the Christian.
The atheistic objection about the possibility of a human Jesus is much more interesting. Given that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist, they say, a human Jesus could have existed and inspired the myth.
There were plenty of godmen at the time of Jesus, and a great number of them were called Jesus. Only in the New Testament we have Jesus Bar Abbas (in later manuscripts called Barabbas) and Bar Jesus. Josephus identifies a few of these messiahs: Jesus son of Danmeus, Jesus son of Sapphias, Jesus son of Ananus, Jesus the high priest and son of Onias, Jesus son of Gamaliel, Jesus son of Gamala, Jesus son of Saphat, Jesus son of Thebuthus. Couldn't Jesus have been inspired by some of these messiahs?
The most obvious reply to this argument is that we went from a myth to a history, not the reverse. If a human Jesus existed, then the early Christian leaders would have started from those mundane events and built a myth around it. But they did precisely the reverse.
A more fundamental reply is the following: without the Bible, we have no definition of who Jesus was. The Bible is our only source to analyze the existence or non-existence of Jesus. Even if other Jesii did inspire the Jesus myth, it would be completely irrelevant to the fact that the Jesus character as portrayed in the Bible did not exist.
Furthermore, the Gospels contradict themselves on details of Jesus' life, thus making the very definition of Jesus dubious at best. In his book "Losing Faith In Faith", Dan Barker has an Easter Challenge, in which he asks Christians to submit a consistent report of Jesus' last day, according to the Gospels. No one has been able to complete that challenge. The Gospels contradict themselves on such basic things as who visited the tomb, whether it was opened or not, who was at the tomb, the people to whom Jesus appeared, how long he stayed, and where he ascended.
Easter itself is rooted in Pagan origins. The very name "Easter" comes from the pagan goddess "Eostre", the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxons. The bunny (Easter Bunny) was the sacrificial companion of Eostre. Lent, the "hot cross bun" and "Good Friday" are also pagan. The spring equinox had been celebrated long before Christianity existed. In the Mediterranean, at the same time than Christianity existed, the cult of Attis celebrated the spring equinox also.
"About 200 B.C. mystery cults began to appear in Rome just as they had earlier in Greece. Most notable was the Cybele cult centered on Vatican hill... Associated with the Cybele cult was that of her lover, Attis ([the older Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, or Orpheus under a new name). He was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection.....
Honestly, when I was done reading this, some of the information I wasn't aware of in here, astounded me.
I would like everyone to read this rather...lengthy article, and say what you feel on it, be honest.
As I have stated again, if this information I pasted is breaking the law, I'll remove it immediately.
Thank You.
This thread is proceeding remarkably civilly -- nice to see. :) I haven't got time at the moment to write anything lengthy, but for now, here are a few sundry points, mostly prompted by that article you just quoted, Maou-Shin Daioka. I have a Physics assignment to do tomorrow, so that should provide plenty opportunities for procrastination; I may write something more substantial then. Proceeding:
- 'Christ' means 'anointed one', which I guess could be transliterated as 'oily', although the connotations are quite different.
- I've never found the similarities between Christianity and prior pagan practices surprising: firstly, if Christianity is indeed correct, such parallels are far from inexplicable (Foreshadowings lost on the Gentiles who knew nothing of God? Mockeries by the devil and his angels? Something else? It doesn't matter particularly. I'm also disinclined to believe the first); also, there is no need, nor indeed any claim, that any particular article of Christian faith was never held independently before. It only asserts that they are true, not that they, or something similar, had never been (incorrectly) held of someone/thing else in the past.
- Cross-pollination from existing religions/cultures/etc. is also not any indication of Christianity being artificial. Particularly with reference to dates, if the ex-Pagans want to continue celebrating on the 25th of December, let them, just make sure they're celebrating something right.
- The Apostles -- who were there -- believed something. They went out and convinced rather a lot of people. And the Fathers believed the same. And all the Doctors of the Church. And the Church today. I've made something of a mess of this point, but I was intending to illustrate continuity. We believe what the Church teaches because we can trace Succession back to the Apostles, who received (the Church teaches, and has always taught) authority from Christ, Who is God and therefore Whose opinion, when it comes down to it, is the one that matters [I say all this in reference to what the Church believes, of course; clearly those outside dispute this]. On a related note, we believe what's written in Scripture because of (and understand it through) the Church's authority. Not the other way around. [ditto the last square brackets] Scripture still trumps everything else, though, being inerrant. It doesn't define itself, notice. See 1 Peter (or is it 2 Peter?) on why private interpretation is a bad thing.
Maou-Shin Daioka
Member
True, true. But the information that I have seen for myself and looked at myself, in my opinion, does make since.
If something is a myth, why believe in it?
Why even bother, it's not going to help you in the long run, have no concrete proof, no way of ever finding out the truth..
I'll have to think about this more.
If something is a myth, why believe in it?
Why even bother, it's not going to help you in the long run, have no concrete proof, no way of ever finding out the truth..
I'll have to think about this more.
1-Up
Member
The Bible states that the people who do not know God are without excuse when they look at creation. About the contradictions thing, you can't take what the Bible says out of its own context and put two things together and say that they are contradictory. About the interpretation thing you understand it more if you know Greek/Hebrew. The Old Testament means the old covenant and the New Testament is the new one. Yes, sin did not come from God, but it came from man's sinful choice. (he was given freedom of choice)
Maou-Shin Daioka
Member
The sentence in where you said sin came from man's sinful choice, 1-Up, is a contradiction.
when you hear the sentence, "god created everything"... what does that sound like to you?
Clearly if god were to create everything, then he created sin, evil, suffering, ect. and any other abominable thing that roams/scours the Earth.
And if god knew the said first humans in the bible were going to commit the most abominable crime all enternity, shouldn't he have stopped it, even if he knew it was going to happen?
Just seems strange that you would not try to prevent a catastrophe from happening, when you knew ahead of time it was going to happen.
when you hear the sentence, "god created everything"... what does that sound like to you?
Clearly if god were to create everything, then he created sin, evil, suffering, ect. and any other abominable thing that roams/scours the Earth.
And if god knew the said first humans in the bible were going to commit the most abominable crime all enternity, shouldn't he have stopped it, even if he knew it was going to happen?
Just seems strange that you would not try to prevent a catastrophe from happening, when you knew ahead of time it was going to happen.
Well-put. I would also add to that that there is such a thing as invincible ignorance: not of natural law, which is intrinsically knowable, but of Divine Revelation (through the Church, particularly in Scripture). So, for example, someone who had lived on a desert island somewhere all his life wouldn't sin by not believing in, e.g., the resurrection of the body, since there'd be no way for him to even know of it. But he would do if he killed someone.1-Up said:
In response to your post, Maou-Shin Daioka, there are two complementary aspects to this. Firstly, God created us with free will, because that's what He wanted to do. This means we're able to do things that are not in accordance with His will, that much is clear. This is not problematic in itself: God's desire is that we worship Him and obey his ordinances through our own will, not merely out of compulsion.
Secondly, from the Fall, God has since restored our state all the more wonderfully. The Exsultet puts it much better than I can:
Maou-Shin Daioka
Member
If god knew all of these atrocities were going to happen, why let it happen?
Why put people through all that suffering in the first place, Eve eating from the tree of knowledge? God knew what was going to happen, why didn't he stop her? And many other things throughout history?
People say God clearly has the power to prevent harm from coming to his children. With all of these catastrophies in human history, that said god could have prevented, that's clearly a lie.
In the event of punishing a child when the child has done wrong, here are factors that should be taken into consideration. The child is not aware of what he/she has done wrong, and most children are innocent of anything they do, unless they know better and the difference. Just wondering, would god still punish the child?
Just wondering, anybody's thoughts on this?
As for now, I'll think about this topic now.
Why put people through all that suffering in the first place, Eve eating from the tree of knowledge? God knew what was going to happen, why didn't he stop her? And many other things throughout history?
People say God clearly has the power to prevent harm from coming to his children. With all of these catastrophies in human history, that said god could have prevented, that's clearly a lie.
In the event of punishing a child when the child has done wrong, here are factors that should be taken into consideration. The child is not aware of what he/she has done wrong, and most children are innocent of anything they do, unless they know better and the difference. Just wondering, would god still punish the child?
Just wondering, anybody's thoughts on this?
As for now, I'll think about this topic now.
Morph
Member
Yeah somebody thought about this... Actually MANY people thought about it. Theologians explain it this way:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suffering is an essential part of live. Without suffer people wouldn't be happy, because there is nothing to be happy about, if you do not know that things can go wrong, too.
It is actually kind of true... People in poor countries are often happier with everything they have as people of rich countries, who often are not happy with their belongings.
When you experience harm you learn to appreciate worth of things.
Sometimes we have to suffer to achieve goals, too. A sportsman who wants to win matches, for example, has to train to become a better sportsman. During the training he suffers from big effort. But after he has reached his goal he can say:
"Hey! I got threw all this successfully! My dream came true because I worked for it!"
He is happy and proud...
Would he has become that happy without the hurdle of the training? No! There would be nothing to be proud of.
So suffering really is an essential part of live and our freedom.
BUT this is only possible, because god doesn't force things to happen or not happen. He is out of time and place and leaves the world independent and free...
He doesn't look away. He realizes everything and feels with us. His spirit supports us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THOSE WHO THINK, that this is my own opinion:
It is not. It is just the point of view of the christian theologians and the church. It makes sence in some way, but I just summed up and gave comments. I have my own opinion, but I want to hear first what others do think about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suffering is an essential part of live. Without suffer people wouldn't be happy, because there is nothing to be happy about, if you do not know that things can go wrong, too.
It is actually kind of true... People in poor countries are often happier with everything they have as people of rich countries, who often are not happy with their belongings.
When you experience harm you learn to appreciate worth of things.
Sometimes we have to suffer to achieve goals, too. A sportsman who wants to win matches, for example, has to train to become a better sportsman. During the training he suffers from big effort. But after he has reached his goal he can say:
"Hey! I got threw all this successfully! My dream came true because I worked for it!"
He is happy and proud...
Would he has become that happy without the hurdle of the training? No! There would be nothing to be proud of.
So suffering really is an essential part of live and our freedom.
BUT this is only possible, because god doesn't force things to happen or not happen. He is out of time and place and leaves the world independent and free...
He doesn't look away. He realizes everything and feels with us. His spirit supports us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THOSE WHO THINK, that this is my own opinion:
It is not. It is just the point of view of the christian theologians and the church. It makes sence in some way, but I just summed up and gave comments. I have my own opinion, but I want to hear first what others do think about this.
I've only got a few minutes, so I'll just address one point at the moment; I might get round to the others when I next come back, but that won't be till Saturday. Continuing:
The other thing is that suffering is not necessarily bad. It is unpleasant, but that is another matter. Much good can come of it. The Old Testament is replete with despair: Heaven had been closed, the Israelites suffered much persecution, etc. But this was all to the greater end of our Redemption. See my quote from the Exsultet above.
That was very rushed, and I apologise for that. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to write this, and I hope it leads to more discussion. :)
Two things spring to mind: firstly, with particular reference to the Fall, it is necessary to analyse exactly what it is God wants of us, or phrased another way, what it was about Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit that displeased Him. There are, I think, two possibilities:Maou-Shin Daioka said:
- He desired that the fruit not be eaten for the very fact itself; or
- He desired that Adam's and Eve's will conform to His own.
The other thing is that suffering is not necessarily bad. It is unpleasant, but that is another matter. Much good can come of it. The Old Testament is replete with despair: Heaven had been closed, the Israelites suffered much persecution, etc. But this was all to the greater end of our Redemption. See my quote from the Exsultet above.
That was very rushed, and I apologise for that. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to write this, and I hope it leads to more discussion. :)
StarBlazer
For the lulz
The meaning of live to me is to serve and worship GOD because to me, he is the one who created everything and if it weren't for him, I probably wouldn't be here right now and alot of things in my life happened and he saved me from all of it. You may not believe me, but I think there is a heaven and hell, and GOD gave us all a choice whether to serve him and go to heaven, or to disobey him and go to hell. He gave us all a choice.
That's all in my opinion. :D
That's all in my opinion. :D
- Status