Are you on the fence with Christianity?

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


You wrote:

["You know what I think? I think that Zachariah and Mary kinda did the thing and that Elizabeth kicked her out of her home, "mess with MY husband will ya?" This would have been kept hush hush but would explain "the virgin birth" and it would also make John the Baptist and Jesus brothers."]

You bring up an interesting, but usually ignored, CENTRAL point on the early Jesus-movement.

There are other alternative explanations to the situation you describe above. One is, that Mary and Elisabeth belonged to similar (but not identical) religious maverick-groups, and with the rather common inability of 'revolutionaries' to get along, they fell-out.

There exists 'information' (in the form of original, but still surviving religious tradition) on this, and NT does imply some rivalry between Jesus' followers and the followers of John the baptist.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

As with the bible there are things in gnostic scripture that are not quite "in line" with what God is... The idea that creation was "botched" is completely rediculous considering how completely perfect the universe is.

People need to learn to distingish between what is a story and what is a lesson. Even the "stories" have lessons behind them...mostly.

We've spoke about the only absolute before... So again if you read to find the absolute you can find the lessons in every religious text regardless of who wrote them.

True, we have spoken about this before, but I would like to remind you, that I am NOT looking for any absolutes. I'm looking for perspectives, systemativ methodologies or whatever, hopefully helping me towards greater understanding etc.

As to the 'perfection' of creation, it must first be noticed, that I haven't started any preaching of my own yet, I'm only presenting what the gnostics said, in the submissive form required by the OP-author to give him/her the possibility of 'explaining' everything to me

and secondly

As you know from our former communication, I'm rather insistent on the point of the invalidity of any self-contaning system 'proving' itself. You maybe see suffering as a part of perfection; .... I don't.

I can even suggest a 'better' creation method, with less suffering implied, than the one used for this universe (but that's beside the point now).

reply to post by bogomil


I see what you're saying...

As for suffering, well i think you create your own situation. You chose to let things bother you in this life so you suffer... As you've clearly noticed i approach everything from a neutral point of view. If you don't let things affect you... theres no suffering.

I've been waiting to hear the OP's point of view about a few things myself so....i guess we'll have to see

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

I see what you're saying...

As for suffering, well i think you create your own situation. You chose to let things bother you in this life so you suffer... As you've clearly noticed i approach everything from a neutral point of view. If you don't let things affect you... theres no suffering.

I've been waiting to hear the OP's point of view about a few things myself so....i guess we'll have to see

1/ Absolutes 'proving' themselves are, with some restrictions, fine with me. Seemingly there are many people needing such, and as long as they do it privately or amongst consenting-adults, it's none of my business.

In my sparetime I don't stand outside churches yelling obscenities, neither do I go from door to door pushing my opinions.

It's the coercive missionaries (from all ideologies) I target with my annoying opposition.

2/ I'm not that personally egocentric or anthropo-centric, that my measuretape for suffering is my own comfort. As it is, I actually suffer very little these days (my hormonal system finally ran out of juice, so I don't have the problems usually associated with mating-dances etc).

My perspective is, that any living being can suffer as a result of the way things are in the visible part of existence, and that they do experience suffering with- or without my choices or opinions on the matter. I would find it rather ridiculous to expect, that a mouse taken by my cat or the inmate of a concentrationcamp would suffer less, because I take the philosophical position, that it's all a part of some 'mysterious ways'. They still squeak or scream.

3/ As to the OP-author honouring us with his presence again, I have some doubts. He/she seems to operate with the idea, that he/she can turn a debate forum into a pulpit for one-direction opiniating. I sometimes have the idea, that ATS religious subforums are used as training-ground for prospective missionaries from theological seminaries etc. To see if they have, what it takes.

reply to post by graphuto

Originally posted by graphuto
Madness, to be honest I left the other thread because of you.

Wow, some people don't like having their ideas questioned. Also, this is sort of poisoning the well.

Could you please just go away and leave me alone?

Nope. This is a public forum and you posted your ideas here.

Quote me the scriptures that you're talking about instead of just paraphrasing what you think.

I'm not paraphrasing what I think, I'm referring to things in the Bible.

Soo...the Biblical lineage from Adam - Jesus allows people to derive an age for the Earth of about 6000 years, this is inconsistent with verifiable scientific measurements for the age of the Earth.

Genesis 1 gives an account of the creation of the Earth that is inconsistent with all of the material evidence.

Actually, all of the objections I raise here (chapter and verse cited)

Most of what you're talking about deals in the Old Testament, and while there are bits of wisdom to be gleaned from it, it's my understanding that the New Testament is kind of like our new "pact" with God, so to speak, through Jesus.

Matthew 5:18-19

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Your understanding is contradicted by Jesus.

Blood sacrafice is no longer necessary because of Jesus.

Well, I never mentioned blood sacrifice.

But seriously, please respect the thread and don't come in to troll it.

Since when is raising an honest objection a form of trolling?

Okay, just to make this simple, I'll ask one question at a time, and I'll only go with the New Testament for now.

How did Judas die?

The 10 Commandments is "The Law".

Judas hanged himself.

You also assume that current scientific methods used to determine the age of something are spot on correct. We don't know this for 100% certain.

You're right, I DON'T like having my ideas/beliefs questioned. It makes me feel uneasy in my soul, my spirit, my conscience, if you can follow me (since we're talking about things that can't be proven, I know how much you hate those things.)

I am admittedly not as smart as most of you people. If you wouldn't mind just posting basic questions instead of paragraph after paragraph of meaningless dribble, I might be more inclined to answer.

Originally posted by graphuto
You also assume that current scientific methods used to determine the age of something are spot on correct. We don't know this for 100% certain.

You're right, I DON'T like having my ideas/beliefs questioned. It makes me feel uneasy in my soul, my spirit, my conscience, if you can follow me (since we're talking about things that can't be proven, I know how much you hate those things.)

edit on 20-4-2011 by graphuto because: (no reason given)

The results of determining the age of the universe and this planet by scientific methods are some 13-15 billion years and 4-5 billion years (I'm not up to date on the latest bids, but in the context it's not a moot-point anyway).

The creationist calculations are some 6000 years (depending on whether bishop Ussher's or his assistant's numbers are used).

Even with some uncertainty in the scientific results, there's no way billions of years can have been a 'miscalculation' eventually turning out to be 6000 years after all.

As an epistemologist myself, I'm ofcourse open for any debate concerning 'truth/reality'-searching methodologies, and one of my favourites, science/logic, is not above any scrutiny either. So if you want to challenge to basic validity of science/logic (leading to billions of years to the best of science's/logic's abilities), be my guest.

Then we could get rid of the extremist religionist's disregard of science/logic for at least a week or so (until a new religionist, who doesn't read ATS or anything else very carefully, will start all over).

As to being questioned, I believe, most people feel uneasy about it to some extent. But have you considered, that YOUR pushing of YOUR absolutes is practically speaking the same process, only with reversed direction.

YOU try to invade peoples' mindspace. Being rather touchy myself about the 'spaces' I have in my life (not many or big, I prefer a simple life) your preachings are missionary and you must be prepared for criticism as being the invader.

I am not trying to invade anyone or their beliefs. As stated in the OP, this thread is here for believers and want to be believers to discuss trinkets of wisdom found in the Bible. This thread has nothing to do with arguing the validity of the Bible or any other subject.

13-15 billion years, or 4-5 billion years. Thats 10 billion years of discrepancy within the scientific community.

What would it be to subtract a few more billion?

Also, God created man on HIS 6th day. So thats 6000 years since Adam was created. What about all the time beforehand?

Originally posted by graphuto
I am not trying to invade anyone or their beliefs. As stated in the OP, this thread is here for believers and want to be believers to discuss trinkets of wisdom found in the Bible. This thread has nothing to do with arguing the validity of the Bible or any other subject.

From your OP:

Quote: ["Yes, I am here to preach to myself and others!"]

......And this is not a pulpit or message board.

And yes, I can ignore you. And yes, you can ignore me (and anyone who doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas), but if you insist on the preaching attitude, I can make the suggested exception to my own usual rules, and you can just consider MY posts as preachings also.

I could experimentally take an enthusiastic pro-position of gnostic-christianity and cherry-pick the bible, all well within your selective OP-frame.

Did you really believe, that your maneuvers would clear a missionary way for you?

You win. Clearly people with Christian ideology and faith are not wanted here, so I will go elsewhere.

Have a good day.

Originally posted by graphuto
13-15 billion years, or 4-5 billion years. Thats 10 billion years of discrepancy within the scientific community.

What would it be to subtract a few more billion?

Also, God created man on HIS 6th day. So thats 6000 years since Adam was created. What about all the time beforehand?

Dude,

these numbers represent respectively the age of the universe AND the age of this planet.

As you seem unfamiliar with such aspects of science, it's not your fault, you didn't get the meaning first time. I could have been less implicit.

The consequence is though, according to science, that the earliest parts of the universe (stars, galaxies) were created some 8-10 billion years BEFORE this planet. In gen. 1 this planet is created first. Even this solar-system's own sun is created after this planet, according to genesis.

High-lighting...quote: ["Also, God created man on HIS 6th day. So thats 6000 years since Adam was created. What about all the time beforehand?"]

So you're at 'symbolic' interpretation now (I asked you in a former post to clarify your interpretation methodology, so as to avoid confusion). Do you mean to flip from single bible-verse citation to overall conclusions to symbolism as it fits you best? Just asking.

So according to the previous ("beforehand") time before the creation of Adam, one of 'god's days must be app. 2 billion years (counting from the universe's creation) if genesis and science are to fit together.

But how does that fit with the 7.th day (the day after Adam's creation, the day when 'god' rested. Gen 2). According to the above equation of 'one of 'god's days = app. 2 billion years' the seventh day adds 2 billion years to mankind's existence, which is far to much according to both science and the creationist's 6000 years.

Did the creation of Adam change the way time runs? In my bible, the same word for 'day' is used in all cases, and there is no other explanations on the subject.

So to fix this little problem, shall we then resort to the big miscellaneous box called: Mysterious ways (or ineffability), where all inter-bible discrepancies and inconsistencies with science are put?

As it is a common mistake amongst christians to assume, that science/logic also has such a similar box, I can assure you, that this is not the case. Science/logic does not on principle conclude 'answers', BEFORE all the steps on the way are verified.

reply to post by graphuto

Originally posted by graphuto
The 10 Commandments is "The Law".

...no, the law would be the 600 some odd commandments in the Hebrew scriptures, the Decalogue would not be the Hebrew understanding of "The Law", and Jesus was most definitely a Hebrew that would have been aware of that. And which version of the 10 commandments? There are at least 3 different versions.

Judas hanged himself.

Oh really?

Acts 1:16-18

Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

But the account you give is also true because it's in Matthew 27:5...but that just leaves us with two contradicting passages. In Matthew we have a Judas consumed by remorse and guilt tossing away the money and hanging himself while Acts depicts Judas as unrepentant, going so far as to actually purchase a field with the money.

Originally posted by graphuto
You win. Clearly people with Christian ideology and faith are not wanted here, so I will go elsewhere.

Have a good day.

I'm not representative of all participants here, not even the christian-critics.

As to my own attitudes, you could have benefitted from reading my posts here and elsewhere. I'm not targeting christians (most of whom are completely decent democratic citizens without any evangelist elitist attitudes). I'm targeting extremism in all its forms.

Only people with absolutes can 'win' or 'loose', and society has to pay the price of the quibblings between the 'soldiers of absolutes'. I'm not here to 'win', I'm here to help an egalitarian society to survive the onslaughts of elitist ideology, thus making room for EVERYBODY (except those who want to topple democracy).

A good day to you also.

reply to post by graphuto

Originally posted by graphuto
You also assume that current scientific methods used to determine the age of something are spot on correct. We don't know this for 100% certain.

Well, we know the margin of error, and it's about a 2% margin of error...and the age of the Earth we're given from those measurements is about 4.54 billion years...plus or minus 2%...which is nowhere near 6000 years. I've heard it's worse than the width of a blade of grass versus a football field.

You're right, I DON'T like having my ideas/beliefs questioned. It makes me feel uneasy in my soul, my spirit, my conscience, if you can follow me (since we're talking about things that can't be proven, I know how much you hate those things.)

Well, nuts to you. If you can't put up with an examination of the basis for your life then you have an uneasy foundation. I personally don't care about having my ideas or beliefs questioned because I've reasoned them out and have defended them against their greatest critic myself. I vet what I believe and if I find something inconsistent I do my best to fix the problem. I actually welcome people questioning my beliefs.

But I guess that's the difference between reason and...well...superstitious nonsense. One thrives on questions, the other wilts.

reply to post by graphuto


This highlights the immaturity of certain people who have not examined their own beliefs. You can't put up with questioning, you can't put up with people actually not agreeing with you...so you take your book home and play the victim. I don't mind Christians. Two of my closest friends, who I would consider nearly brothers, are both devout Christians.

And ATS? This is a website full of Christians. You're the one that decided to preach...and when you couldn't take the heat you just exited the kitchen and acted like you shouldn't have expected any heat in there.

If we assume that the Bible is true and that Christianity is also true

Are Christians then doing the work of Satan?

If someone has never heard of Jesus Christ they get to go directly to heaven.

If you tell them about Christ and they do not believe it then they go to hell.

So by you telling millions upon millions of people about Christ you are sending millions of people to hell that would have otherwise gone to heaven.

So Christians are doing the work of Satan.

Everyone has the free will to believe.

Also, in this day and age, unless you're living in a third world country, I find it highly doubtful that most havnt been exposed to the message.