the right religion

[waitasec]

People claiming to know more about other peoples motives than they do really gets old. It was my statement, I know why I made it. Believe whatever makes you feel better.

is exactly what you did.

I don't get it. God can assign a destiny or not. He can even assign a partial destiny but leave other things to chance and freewill. If he exists then this is obvious.

right...so god can do whatever he wants. that doesn't solve anything.
destiny for some is a double standard. do you believe god has favorites?

There is very little evidence of a non personal God.

sure whatever makes you feel better.

 

[1robin]

Google Zoroastrianism and you can read about how the Greeks destroyed many of the religious texts at the temple of Xerxes. \

Google Constantine/Destruction nof knowledge and you can read how he went about destroying religious documents and symbols.

There was a 700 year old school of philosophy at Alexandria .. One of the salaried directors was awoman named Hypathia who taught mathematics. Hypatia

Thanks for the links, I will check them out. Was Hypathia the women played by Rachel Weise in that silly Agora movie. My original point was since we do not have a good understanding of what those texts contained, lines of transmission, or archeological corroberation, how can they be considered as more reliable than the bible. It is an argument from silence. I do not claim their unauthenticity could be proved either.

Any reading of the history of the Catholic Church will detail out numerous instances of knowledge destruction, particularely if it conflicted in any way with the teachings of the church.

After 1000 years of Church dominance not even the Kings could read and many of the monks were illiterate. Institutionalized stupidity.

I am sure the Catholics did destroy things to some extent, especially pagan texts. They are also known to have preserved all kinds of extra biblical things. One way to look at it is there was another all powerful God beside the biblical one why did he allow the destruction of his texts. The biblical God preserved his throught many persecutions. The biblical texts have a greater textual attestation and tenacity than any other work in ancient history. The biblical God could have simply used the Catholics to accomplish this. Your second statement runs counter to everything I have ever heard. The moks were usually the most literate group in society. In the early U.S. schools were began for the primary purpose of teaching literacy to allow reading of the bible etc....

Who knows what Pauls vision was or was not. The Pauline writings has 3 conflicting accounts.

Can you list the conflicts.

None that Paul had any knowledge of .. they were written after his time.

Being that paul did not have much contact with Christ but he did with the Churches springing up, his works are exactly the character that I would expect. You have to remember that as God is the ultimate author he was awhare of the roles and purposes even if Paul was not. I do not see any issue with paul's perspectives, conversely it's seems to be exactly what he should have been doing. How many stories of the life of Christ blow by blow are necessary. I reviewed some of Paul's writings last night and found references to Christ frequent.

Paul has the same contradictions with Jesus as he does with James. I read posting from Matt Henry and went to his site. I do not know how you can call this guy the most "universally respected" .. The guy was born in the 15th century and is apparently well liked by evangelicals (strike one for that). More on this commentary later.

Mathew Henry is the KIng James of commentaries. I do not claim perfection but he is quoted mare than any other I have seen. However I could supply many commentaries that have no problem reconciling Paul with Christ or James. It is simply two people covering the same things with different emphasis.

One of the problems with the NT is that there is so much reliance on Pauline epistles IMO. Paul did more writing but this does not make him an authority. Also a number of Pauline epistles were not written by Paul. Also Constantine was likely a fan of Paul's idea that you could be saved purely on the basis of faith and it was during his time that what went into the Bible was chosen .. .and what did not.

The scrutiny over what went in the bible was far more complex than what Constantine liked. I will admit that Paul has an overwhelming influence.

Again ... not sure where you get this "most universally respected" idea from.

From thousands of references I have seen over many years, but most commentaries are of like mind concerning this issue.

He makes some intersting points but where he fails is when he claims that Paul was talking about what is required to be justified before Christ and James was talking about what is required to be justified before man.

In the absence of more familiarity with you, I will stick with Mathew Henry. Have you written a commentary that is published.

There are a couple of problems with this line .. first is that he does not justify this claim and second this contradicts the words of Jesus in the sermon on the mount
Jesus explicitly states that he is talking about the kingdom of heaven .. and entrance/high status requires works.

If you just examine a justification by works philosophy it soon become apparent that it is an impossible standard without clear coherence. It simply doesn't function in this context.

Big difference between 2170 and 2000. I got a date of 1976BC on wiki. No biggie in any case.

If we put Abraham around 2000 he is mostl likely worshiping El (Father, Creator and all powerfull God)

What is funny is that Noah and a couple of his sons are still alive and kicking while Abraham is alive. Obviously if the father of all humanity were still alive everyone on the planet would be worshiping that person and whatever God he and his son believed in and all the people of the world would be making regular pilgramiges to see "the father of all humanity"

I have not spent suffecient time in the study of things this old to evaluate your claims so I will not comment. These things are not core issues and are far less attested and have very little detail which has discouraged my desire to take a position about them.

Clearly and without any doubt .. the story of Noah is false

. That is not a provable cliam. I am not suggesting it's oppoisite is provable either.

What is even more odd, is that shortly after the flood story Noah is never mentioned again. At the time of Abraham (round 2000BC) both the Egyptian and Sumerian and Canaan religions are well established and had been for centuries. Same thing for India, South America, Africa, and Europe.

Noah must have been a busy fellow in the 400 years he lived after the flood. (and his seed must have contained multiple races)

See my rely above. I just don't have the confidence gained from thurough study to debate this.

 

[1robin]

is exactly what you did.

Since my statement was made with the caveat that it was my opinion, and did not apply to any individual in particular, and was completely generic in nature then your statement is invalid. The "you" I used was a generic "you" not a reference to you personally. Even though IMO you know what I meant, consider the point withdrawn for reasons of ambiguous word choice on my part.

right...so god can do whatever he wants. that doesn't solve anything.
destiny for some is a double standard. do you believe god has favorites?

Actually it solves your question. Even if it didn't solve anything that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. How can a given concept if accepted not salve anything. I think that would be impossible. I did not suggest that God assigning a destiny has anything to do with favoratism. Many destinies in the bible contained tragedy and trouble. Why is this side issue so important to you? What are the implications of the truth of the matter? This is a little understood or necessary topic and has little effect on anything else. I have necessarily left my responses less than specific because of it's lack of revelational explanation.

sure whatever makes you feel better.

If a God is impersonal that means he has practically no interaction with us and therefore leaves little evidence. A personal God that interacts with us would naturally leave much evidence (like the bible). This is so obvious I can't believe you don't agree.

 

[waitasec]

Since my statement was made with the caveat that it was my opinion, and did not apply to any individual in particular, and was completely generic in nature then your statement is invalid.

but then you followed it up with this

So the issue actually is your and my presuppositions, humility, and the condition of our hearts not the evidence its self.

Actually it solves your question.

no it doesn't as it opens the door to more questions.

If a God is impersonal that means he has practically no interaction with us and therefore leaves little evidence.

consider elizabeth frizl..who was locked in her basement for over 20 yrs being raped by her own father...did god just stand there concerned as she prayed to be rescued? but i guess for you it was worth it for her IF it leads her to jesus, right?
or what about the children who died at the hands of their parents for religious and non religious reasons...natural disasters, disease, people born without the capacity to empathize (sociopaths)
there is no evidence for a god that is concerned...

A personal God that interacts with us would naturally leave much evidence (like the bible). This is so obvious I can't believe you don't agree.

actually, the bible is right along side the koran and other religious books. it's nothing special but to those who were brought up believing it is true and for a number of other reasons, like having religion ingrained in culture which permeates into all sorts of aspects into everyday life...but as we are beginning to see, it isn't working as more and more people are checking the box that says..."non religious"

 

[beerisit]

but then you followed it up with this





no it doesn't as it opens the door to more questions.



consider elizabeth frizl..who was locked in her basement for over 20 yrs being raped by her own father...did god just stand there concerned as she prayed to be rescued? but i guess for you it was worth it for her IF it leads her to jesus, right?
or what about the children who died at the hands of their parents for religious and non religious reasons...natural disasters, disease, people born without the capacity to empathize (sociopaths)
there is no evidence for a god that is concerned...

actually, the bible is right along side the koran and other religious books. it's nothing special but to those who were brought up believing it is true and for a number of other reasons, like having religion ingrained in culture which permeates into all sorts of aspects into everyday life...but as we are beginning to see, it isn't working as more and more people are checking the box that says..."non religious"

Woohoo you go mate.

 

[Nakosis]

Given the context of the passage it appears in in John, and the incredibly late point at which it appears [and with no mention whatsoever in any previous texts], I don't see this as a rational supposition for what the passage intends.

Some additional passages...

Matt 11:13-14
"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come."



Matt 17:10-13

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist."

The Abrahamic Monotheist concept is a single lifetime, with a judgment at the end for that lifetime; it has never varied.

The predominate view of the Judean priests/scribes of the region was vested in the Tanakh so what? Are you going to argue for their authority over the concepts of God?

Well, of course. So, how is it that you can disagree with my assessment? We are all disposable, and God is uncaring in what he does with us, except as regards his own desires.

Who's arguing? And yes God is perhaps uncaring about what you value.

They served a disposable role and did not share in the lesson, did they? That is malicious, and smacks of punishment.

Again, in not the face of either reincarnation or reunion. Is the recycling of bottles and cans malicious or a from of punishment? In this view they are just a shell, a vessel for physical existence.

Identity is the only valuable thing. All the rest cannot be achieved without it.
The only illusion here is that some thing can be more valuable than the self.

What you value is the basis of you morality is it not? What you value is not something that can be decided by another.

I must say, the more you folks try to ponder God's aims the more dangerous and immoral he appears.

According to what you say you value, yes concepts of God are dangerous and immoral.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The predominate view of the Judean priests/scribes of the region was vested in the Tanakh so what? Are you going to argue for their authority over the concepts of God?

So what? The predominant view was certainly not anything you've described.

Who's arguing? And yes God is perhaps uncaring about what you value.

Why is what I value not important to someone who loves me perfectly?

Again, in not the face of either reincarnation or reunion. Is the recycling of bottles and cans malicious or a from of punishment? In this view they are just a shell, a vessel for physical existence.

Neitherof your answers is present in the Bible.

What you value is the basis of you morality is it not? What you value is not something that can be decided by another.

There can be no morality without an identity.
But your question was non sequitur to what I asked.

According to what you say you value, yes concepts of God are dangerous and immoral.

Good, glad you've seen the light. Spread this truth and free others.

 

[Nakosis]

So what? The predominant view was certainly not anything you've described.

Yes so what? Unless you have a interest in supporting the predominant view of the Tanakh.

Why is what I value not important to someone who loves me perfectly?

If your child values sugar/candy and you choose to restrict it does that mean you don't love them because you don't see access to sugar as important as they do?

I don't see the association here. Love means you have to allow those you love to indulge behavior you see as harmful to them?

Neither of your answers is present in the Bible.

If you want to discount the passages I provided. None of which you really addressed except to state the obvious that it is not the predominate view.

There can be no morality without an identity.

That maybe true. So if you were to no longer value identity by what basis would you judge morality.

But your question was non sequitur to what I asked.

I provide three passages supportive of reincarnation. The rest was responsive to statements you made.

Good, glad you've seen the light. Spread this truth and free others.

The truth as I see it is that morality is subjective to the individual. However this, as you pointed out, all seems non-sequitur to what you asked.

 

[1robin]

The truth as I see it is that morality is subjective to the individual. However this, as you pointed out, all seems non-sequitur to what you asked.

This is not the case in society. People, even Atheists continuously use words like evil, good, and worth that suggest they actually do believe in objective standards even though they cannot justify them. When people judge other people like say Sadam Hussein, or some of those terrible African dictators they use objective standards to do so. If the government decided to take your chldren away for experimentation would you say they should not do that because you don't happen to like it. Or would you start rattleing off objective statements like they don't have the right, or that would be evil, etc.... Everyone acts as if objective standards exist and then Atheists, etc... turn around and say they don't. Your rights in our consitution are objective rights and rightfully appeal to God when necessary to establish their justification.

In summary our society relies on Objective standards continuously. Without them society as we know it would have no standard to appeal to to label Hitler evil or cannabalism wrong, law would completely loose it's justification. Every one instictively knows this and acts as if they do exist, but only certain people turn around and suggest they don't because they don't like the implications. Objective moral standards are necessary to have a coherent system of justice. Objective standards cannot exist outside of a religous or transcendental context.

 

[Nakosis]

This is not the case in society. People, even Atheists continuously use words like evil, good, and worth that suggest they actually do believe in objective standards even though they cannot justify them. When people judge other people like say Sadam Hussein, or some of those terrible African dictators they use objective standards to do so. If the government decided to take your chldren away for experimentation would you say they should not do that because you don't happen to like it. Or would you start rattleing off objective statements like they don't have the right, or that would be evil, etc.... Everyone acts as if objective standards exist and then Atheists, etc... turn around and say they don't. Your rights in our consitution are objective rights and rightfully appeal to God when necessary to establish their justification.

In summary our society relies on Objective standards continuously. Without them society as we know it would have no standard to appeal to to label Hitler evil or cannabalism wrong, law would completely loose it's justification. Every one instictively knows this and acts as if they do exist, but only certain people turn around and suggest they don't because they don't like the implications. Objective moral standards are necessary to have a coherent system of justice. Objective standards cannot exist outside of a religous or transcendental context.

A reasonable position.

Heathen though brought up a good point I think. Morality and identity seem to go go hand in hand.

As you lose interest/attachment to identity any sense of (human?) morality looses value.

My view of of the "ultimate" truth is eternal unity with God. All separation from that is an illusion. Right or wrong, because of that view, identity is not something I value greatly.

My morality is based on that unity with God which can't really be destroyed. Identity can. However since I see us, you and I, as one with that unity, your success as my success. If I play a role in God's plan as a "bad guy" and you benefit from whatever happens to me it's ok.

You'd judge me as a bad guy. Ok, fine. I'd judge myself as being instrumental. supportive of your spiritual progress.

So my morality is based on the concept of unity, not identity. People like Saddam we, I learn from. He played the role that was given him. I don't know how much he could have chosen differently. Maybe he was a victim circumstances? God's plan?

So God did not love Saddam? Therefore God is immoral? That's the implication that a atheist might bring.
In my view it all serves God's purpose. Even what you'd judge as evil.

"It's ok God didn't love him and he suffered (whatever). He was evil/wicked". The response yes?

In my view, God has infinite love. It's only our own attachment to materialism that makes it appear otherwise.

 

[1robin]

A reasonable position.

Heathen though brought up a good point I think. Morality and identity seem to go go hand in hand.

I find this hard to believe considering the source but will address it. For objective morality to exist it's objectiveness means it is true whether you believe it or I believe it. It exists independant of anyones identity with the exception of God. Even if I had never been born it would still be objectively wrong to unjustly murder someone. Only a subjective morals is "subject" to yours or my identity or opinion. Even if you value someone less that only effects your subjective opinion of that person it says nothing about that persons actual value with God. I am finding out people don't really understand these concepts very well. I am also learning how absolute these issues are. Here is some info on it.

http://www.meadowlarkchurch.org/pdf/study_20041102041446.pdf
A debate where a famous Atheist reveals atheisms lack of justification for objective morality,
or this which is a collection of papers from many scholars on the subject:
Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?

As you lose interest/attachment to identity any sense of (human?) morality looses value.

My view of of the "ultimate" truth is eternal unity with God. All separation from that is an illusion. Right or wrong, because of that view, identity is not something I value greatly.

My morality is based on that unity with God which can't really be destroyed. Identity can. However since I see us, you and I, as one with that unity, your success as my success. If I play a role in God's plan as a "bad guy" and you benefit from whatever happens to me it's ok.

You'd judge me as a bad guy. Ok, fine. I'd judge myself as being instrumental. supportive of your spiritual progress.

So my morality is based on the concept of unity, not identity. People like Saddam we, I learn from. He played the role that was given him. I don't know how much he could have chosen differently. Maybe he was a victim circumstances? God's plan?

So God did not love Saddam? Therefore God is immoral? That's the implication that a atheist might bring.
In my view it all serves God's purpose. Even what you'd judge as evil.

"It's ok God didn't love him and he suffered (whatever). He was evil/wicked". The response yes?

In my view, God has infinite love. It's only our own attachment to materialism that makes it appear otherwise.

The rest of this is a philisophical stance that I believe is based on a faulty premise. If we are to meaningfully discuss the God of the bible we must stay within the context of his revelation. It is not meaningfull to invent a God that is what we think he should be and then call him the biblical God and discuss the implications. The God of the bible clearly states in the bible that all men are born seperated from God. We are considered ungodly. People like this are not necessarily worse than Christians in behavior and many are considered good people. I am giving you the bibles claims on this subject. God says that in this ungodly state we cannot please God or have fellowship with him. We must be born again in order to establish a relationship with him. As long as God's offer of salvation based on his son's sacrifice in order to forgive us of our sins is refused then we are rightly alienated from him. If you die in a state of seperation you inhereit what you chose, eternal seperation in it's absolute form (no love, beauty, etc......). I don't believe you agree with this or understand this from what you wrote above. If I am mistaken and you are refering to another concept of God outside Christianity then I have nothing to offer in reply. Always strive to remain in the context of revelation if considering the biblical God. If you are frustrated by the fact that I do not consider anything contrary to the bible to be valid, ask yourself this. If I do believe the bible is an accurate reflection of God's word then wouldn't my view be consistent with that. Here is something to illustrate the lack of worth in all our vain reasonings in comparison to the teachings of Christ.

"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of great Britians greatest secular historians. emphasis mine.


Christ was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian

 

[Nakosis]

I find this hard to believe considering the source but will address it. For objective morality to exist it's objectiveness means it is true whether you believe it or I believe it. It exists independant of anyones identity with the exception of God. Even if I had never been born it would still be objectively wrong to unjustly murder someone. Only a subjective morals is "subject" to yours or my identity or opinion. Even if you value someone less that only effects your subjective opinion of that person it says nothing about that persons actual value with God. I am finding out people don't really understand these concepts very well. I am also learning how absolute these issues are. Here is some info on it.

http://www.meadowlarkchurch.org/pdf/study_20041102041446.pdf

The problem with the argument made for a "pantheist" view is that that here existing/living have not lost attachment to form. If I see a truck heading my way I'll step out of the way. Two who I know of who let go of their attachment to their physical form is the Vietnamese monk who set himself on fire to protest the treatment of Buddhist monks at the hands of South Vietnam and of course Jesus.

A debate where a famous Atheist reveals atheisms lack of justification for objective morality,
or this which is a collection of papers from many scholars on the subject:
Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?

Not really supporting the atheist position. However I'd agree they couldn't justify any judgement of evil. Generally they argue the immorality of the Christian concept of God. If they are to make an argument it can't be from a position of objective morality.

The rest of this is a philisophical stance that I believe is based on a faulty premise. If we are to meaningfully discuss the God of the bible we must stay within the context of his revelation. It is not meaningfull to invent a God that is what we think he should be and then call him the biblical God and discuss the implications. The God of the bible clearly states in the bible that all men are born seperated from God.

Ok, separated from God. Exactly my position.

We are considered ungodly. People like this are not necessarily worse than Christians in behavior and many are considered good people. I am giving you the bibles claims on this subject. God says that in this ungodly state we cannot please God or have fellowship with him.

Again, no unity with God. Not far off.

We must be born again in order to establish a relationship with him. As long as God's offer of salvation based on his son's sacrifice in order to forgive us of our sins is refused then we are rightly alienated from him. If you die in a state of seperation you inhereit what you chose, eternal seperation in it's absolute form (no love, beauty, etc......).

Yes, Christianity sees it as a one chance opportunity. Do you know why? The stance was finalized in 500... something? AD

It minimize the concept of Christian salvation. It was in conflict with the concept of resurrection of the body. Speculative use of Christian scripture. (which I admit) and no recollection of past lives. If you had a past life surely you'd remember something.

These were the arguments made against reincarnation. However Origen who was a renowned Christian scholar argued in favor of reincarnation. Until this ruling of the church hierarchy reincarnation was debated among Christian scholars. The only point being Origen who was well versed in Christian scripture supported the concept of reincarnation.

I don't believe you agree with this or understand this from what you wrote above. If I am mistaken and you are refering to another concept of God outside Christianity then I have nothing to offer in reply. Always strive to remain in the context of revelation if considering the biblical God. If you are frustrated by the fact that I do not consider anything contrary to the bible to be valid, ask yourself this. If I do believe the bible is an accurate reflection of God's word then wouldn't my view be consistent with that. Here is something to illustrate the lack of worth in all our vain reasonings in comparison to the teachings of Christ.

Yes, it is outside the authorized view of Christianity. However I don't think outside an objective view of what Jesus taught.

"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of great Britians greatest secular historians. emphasis mine.


Christ was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian

I'm not arguing against the Character of Jesus. Only, I suppose that any Christian entity/church has sole authority of interpretation.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes so what? Unless you have a interest in supporting the predominant view of the Tanakh.

Well, I do if you are implying that the Bible promotes reincarnation.

If your child values sugar/candy and you choose to restrict it does that mean you don't love them because you don't see access to sugar as important as they do?

It's ridiculous to assume anything I value is bad for me.
God doesn't value anything I value. His needs are always put first. That isn't how love works.

I don't see the association here. Love means you have to allow those you love to indulge behavior you see as harmful to them?

Again, that's a false assumption.

If you want to discount the passages I provided. None of which you really addressed except to state the obvious that it is not the predominate view.

But, that is the point, isn't it? You say the bible promotes reincarnation, by taking two passages out of context. I was explaining why I don't see that as being the case. By taking those passages as saying so, you are discounting everything else.

That maybe true. So if you were to no longer value identity by what basis would you judge morality.

I would never lose my feeling of value for it.

I provide three passages supportive of reincarnation. The rest was responsive to statements you made.

Then I'll repeat: the passages don't support it [in my opinion]; and the flow of life-death-resurrection-judgement which the bible speaks of in various ways throughout, would be hobbled by the idea of going back for another life time. Tossing reincarnation into the melange does not make any sense, given the rest. Jesus being a spirit returning is not what the Bible promotes in terms of 'how everything works for everybody'; Jesus is a special case, essentially God moving around doing whatever he wants with no constraints on how he might game the system. Jesus is not the same Elijah even if he calls himself this; he compares himself to him; else why does Elijah appear with Moses when Jesus transfigures?? Think about it a sec. Jesus never factually identifies himself with someone who lived hundreds of years before.

The truth as I see it is that morality is subjective to the individual. However this, as you pointed out, all seems non-sequitur to what you asked.

 

[Oryonder]

Thanks for the links, I will check them out. Was Hypathia the women played by Rachel Weise in that silly Agora movie. My original point was since we do not have a good understanding of what those texts contained, lines of transmission, or archeological corroberation, how can they be considered as more reliable than the bible. It is an argument from silence. I do not claim their unauthenticity could be proved either.

I am sure the Catholics did destroy things to some extent, especially pagan texts. They are also known to have preserved all kinds of extra biblical things. One way to look at it is there was another all powerful God beside the biblical one why did he allow the destruction of his texts. The biblical God preserved his throught many persecutions. The biblical texts have a greater textual attestation and tenacity than any other work in ancient history. The biblical God could have simply used the Catholics to accomplish this. Your second statement runs counter to everything I have ever heard. The moks were usually the most literate group in society. In the early U.S. schools were began for the primary purpose of teaching literacy to allow reading of the bible etc....

The original claim was that the preponderance of Christian writing somehow gave it more legitimacy than other religions in the past. This is not a good argument for anything IMO.

Can you list the conflicts.

There are 3 or more different stories of Pauls vision .. and they conflict. There is no point in looking at these conflicts because even if there was only one version it still does give Pauls claims much veracity.

If he did "speak with Jesus" he surely did not tell us much about what went on in the conversation. Therfor he might as well not have spoken to him to begin with.

Being that paul did not have much contact with Christ but he did with the Churches springing up, his works are exactly the character that I would expect. You have to remember that as God is the ultimate author he was awhare of the roles and purposes even if Paul was not.

It can not be claimed (legitimately) that "God" is the ultimate author. And thank goodness because that would make God a terrible writer who can not seem to get his story straight.

Mathew Henry is the KIng James of commentaries. I do not claim perfection but he is quoted mare than any other I have seen. However I could supply many commentaries that have no problem reconciling Paul with Christ or James. It is simply two people covering the same things with different emphasis.

Of course you can .. no suprise there. In these other commentaries .. just like in Henry .. they will likely not be convincing and most will not likely pass the giggle test.

As stated earlier Henry makes an interesting argument but he gives no justication for his claim that Paul was speaking about being Justified by God and James from a perspective of being justified by man.

He fails to explain why Jesus talks about works justifying one before God which supports James and contradicts what he is saying about Paul.

You can stick with whatever you like but it should be for a reason other than "lots of other people have quoted this guy".

The scrutiny over what went in the bible was far more complex than what Constantine liked. I will admit that Paul has an overwhelming influence.

How complex it was we do not know. What we do know is that Constantine is responsible for the trinity doctrine and he definately had an religious agenda.

That is not a provable cliam. I am not suggesting it's oppoisite is provable either.

It is absolutely a provable claim unless one resorts to "God did it"

For example .. how did Noah collect 2 Polar bears. It would have taken him and his 3 sons years to do even if such a thing were possible. (corralling not one but two 1000 lb animals and taking them thousands of miles can not be easy)

Then .. after the flood .. how did these animals get home. How did the spectacled bear get back to South America.

The only thing one can come up with is "God did it" which is a nonsense answer because if God was going to do all these things why did he bother with a flood in the first place ?

It is absolute denial to think that Noah would still be waking the earth and that all the people of earth would have forgotten about him.

We have proof that continuous civilizations existed during the time when Moses supposedly got off the Ark.

If Moses died in 1920BC .. that puts the exit of the Ark at roughly 2320BC.

We can find all kinds of different races and cultures thriving throughout the world in 2100 (200 years later) and many of these cultures are continuous well before 2320 to well after.

You can say "God did it" but this does not make an sense because God gave us reason and intellect and God would obviously realize that people living 1000s of years later would classify the story as absolute nonsense.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, I do if you are implying that the Bible promotes reincarnation.

Promotes it, obviously not. It'd go against the authorized Christian theology. Just pointing out the passages from winch the claim is derived. Any other support is non-biblical so didn't see much point in bringing it up.

It's ridiculous to assume anything I value is bad for me.

I'd assume God wouldn't need to assume. Where as I, I'm just trying to offer plausible reasoning.

God doesn't value anything I value. His needs are always put first. That isn't how love works.

That's hyperbole. The argument wasn't covering everything you value. Besides what you value may change over time.

Again, that's a false assumption.

How is it false? Is the better assumption that everything one values is good for them?

But, that is the point, isn't it? You say the bible promotes reincarnation, by taking two passages out of context. I was explaining why I don't see that as being the case. By taking those passages as saying so, you are discounting everything else.

First, I'm not discounting everything else. I would question some interpretations. Second you didn't address them specifically. Not that you have to. However there's been no real discussion.

I would never lose my feeling of value for it.

This is what I suspect most people feel until they do. People do, but your attachment support my view anyway.

Then I'll repeat: the passages don't support it [in my opinion]; and the flow of life-death-resurrection-judgement which the bible speaks of in various ways throughout, would be hobbled by the idea of going back for another life time. Tossing reincarnation into the melange does not make any sense, given the rest. Jesus being a spirit returning is not what the Bible promotes in terms of 'how everything works for everybody'; Jesus is a special case, essentially God moving around doing whatever he wants with no constraints on how he might game the system. Jesus is not the same Elijah even if he calls himself this; he compares himself to him; else why does Elijah appear with Moses when Jesus transfigures?? Think about it a sec. Jesus never factually identifies himself with someone who lived hundreds of years before.

Actually John the Baptist was thought to be the reincarnation of Elijah. The concept is within the passages mentioned. The understanding of John's disciples. Jesus gave no correction for this view. It's not promoted nor confirmed by Jesus in the Bible. Neither is it denied. I'm just pointing to the source of the argument not asking you to accept it's conclusion.

 

[1robin]

The original claim was that the preponderance of Christian writing somehow gave it more legitimacy than other religions in the past. This is not a good argument for anything IMO.

The rest of your comments have been clever what possesed you on this one. Virtually every textual scholar who ever lived will say that lines of transmission and the ability to establish the reliability of the latest text in representing the earliest as closely as possible is the most important factor in establishing the probability of an event. I never said it is proof just a factor that effects the probability of the event.

There are 3 or more different stories of Pauls vision .. and they conflict. There is no point in looking at these conflicts because even if there was only one version it still does give Pauls claims much veracity.

Since I disagree and you won't produce it can we then just drop it.

If he did "speak with Jesus" he surely did not tell us much about what went on in the conversation. Therfor he might as well not have spoken to him to begin with.

By what justification do you have that mandates a certain number of words to be necessary. It was the exact number of words needed to communicate what was necessary.

It can not be claimed (legitimately) that "God" is the ultimate author. And thank goodness because that would make God a terrible writer who can not seem to get his story straight.

It can and is claimed. proveing it would be hard but there are factors that argue the case.

Of course you can .. no suprise there. In these other commentaries .. just like in Henry .. they will likely not be convincing and most will not likely pass the giggle test.

Anyone who can look at the bona fides of the major textual scholars that have written commentaries and think them laughable is not a serious scholar and is relying on something besides well known facts for argumentation. This from a person who wants me to consider books we don't even have seriously.

As stated earlier Henry makes an interesting argument but he gives no justication for his claim that Paul was speaking about being Justified by God and James from a perspective of being justified by man.

Thats your opinion and it is in the minority of those who should know if anyone does.

He fails to explain why Jesus talks about works justifying one before God which supports James and contradicts what he is saying about Paul.

His apparent contradiction with James is well known, his dissagreement with Jesus is very rarely mentioned. Why don't you list a verse or two and we will discuss it. The biblical narrative as a whole supports faith only. Jeses told the theif on the cross that he was justified and that guy never prefored one work other than belief. I do not agree with your assesment of Jesus.

You can stick with whatever you like but it should be for a reason other than "lots of other people have quoted this guy".

His is the most popular and accepted commentary on the bible in history. I don't necessarily like him in particular. I chose him because bible critics love to discredit the messengers and he is the most credible.

How complex it was we do not know. What we do know is that Constantine is responsible for the trinity doctrine and he definately had an religious agenda.

I am not an expert on Constantine. I do know his input is extremely overblown by bible critics. Name instance that proves your point and we will discuss it.

It is absolutely a provable claim unless one resorts to "God did it"

Being that God can't be ruled out then your statement is false and for other reasons I will write in a minute. If you rule out the supernatural upfront that is bad scholarship and you need to be evaluating something besides the bible.

For example .. how did Noah collect 2 Polar bears. It would have taken him and his 3 sons years to do even if such a thing were possible. (corralling not one but two 1000 lb animals and taking them thousands of miles can not be easy)

Then .. after the flood .. how did these animals get home. How did the spectacled bear get back to South America.

The only thing one can come up with is "God did it" which is a nonsense answer because if God was going to do all these things why did he bother with a flood in the first place ?

It is absolute denial to think that Noah would still be waking the earth and that all the people of earth would have forgotten about him.

We have proof that continuous civilizations existed during the time when Moses supposedly got off the Ark.

If Moses died in 1920BC .. that puts the exit of the Ark at roughly 2320BC.

We can find all kinds of different races and cultures thriving throughout the world in 2100 (200 years later) and many of these cultures are continuous well before 2320 to well after.

You can say "God did it" but this does not make an sense because God gave us reason and intellect and God would obviously realize that people living 1000s of years later would classify the story as absolute nonsense.

There is at least one view that rules out all your points in one blow. It is believed by many to be an allegorical story. I tend to believe in the literal interpretation but do not make hard claims on subjects this old.

 

[1robin]

The problem with the argument made for a "pantheist" view is that that here existing/living have not lost attachment to form. If I see a truck heading my way I'll step out of the way. Two who I know of who let go of their attachment to their physical form is the Vietnamese monk who set himself on fire to protest the treatment of Buddhist monks at the hands of South Vietnam and of course Jesus.

There is a historical story you might find interesting. I believe the time frame was soon after the resurection. It comes from records contained in roman archives. The ceaser at the time sent an official to Israel to implement his decree requireing everyone to declare allegence to him as a God. Most everywhere there was compliance but is Israel not so much. The official wrote a letter back to ceaser (the record I mentioned) that he better think of a way to let the Jew out of the deal because they wouldn't do it. He said either change the requirement or there will be no Jews left to govern. They almost unanimously chose to die rather than just say Ceaser was God. It is relatively common for men to risk certain death in order to destroy others but rare for men to lay down their life for an idea alone. This says nothing about the truth of their beliefs but it does indicate their sincerity.

Not really supporting the atheist position. However I'd agree they couldn't justify any judgement of evil. Generally they argue the immorality of the Christian concept of God. If they are to make an argument it can't be from a position of objective morality.

Right on.

Ok, separated from God. Exactly my position.

Agreed.

Again, no unity with God. Not far off

. I just wanted to make claer what unity with God meant.

Yes, Christianity sees it as a one chance opportunity. Do you know why? The stance was finalized in 500... something? AD

It minimize the concept of Christian salvation. It was in conflict with the concept of resurrection of the body. Speculative use of Christian scripture. (which I admit) and no recollection of past lives. If you had a past life surely you'd remember something.

These were the arguments made against reincarnation. However Origen who was a renowned Christian scholar argued in favor of reincarnation. Until this ruling of the church hierarchy reincarnation was debated among Christian scholars. The only point being Origen who was well versed in Christian scripture supported the concept of reincarnation.

Well one chance a lifetime long. Reincarnation has so many philisophical hurtles that it looks impossible. It also is not biblical in any way.

Yes, it is outside the authorized view of Christianity. However I don't think outside an objective view of what Jesus taught.

I encourage you to elaborate on this.

I'm not arguing against the Character of Jesus. Only, I suppose that any Christian entity/church has sole authority of interpretation.

I don't think it is possible to alter the reality of Christ to any meaninful extent. There is so much information in the bible on him it would be hard to claim a different Christ.

You seem to subscibe to some sort of an unusual philosophy or combination there of. You mention many ideas and points of view that are outside Christianity but are found in other religions and metaphysics. Can you state simply what you do believe and provide the source of those beliefs.

 

[Nakosis]

You seem to subscibe to some sort of an unusual philosophy or combination there of. You mention many ideas and points of view that are outside Christianity but are found in other religions and metaphysics. Can you state simply what you do believe and provide the source of those beliefs.

This...

Questions and Answers about Gnostic Christianity

Is probably a good overview of my current beliefs. Not as the authorized religion of God in any kind of way. A lot of it happens to coincide with my experiences/own investigation. So it doesn't dictate by beliefs. It just happens I've drawn similar conclusions.

 

[1robin]

This...

Questions and Answers about Gnostic Christianity

Is probably a good overview of my current beliefs. Not as the authorized religion of God in any kind of way. A lot of it happens to coincide with my experiences/own investigation. So it doesn't dictate by beliefs. It just happens I've drawn similar conclusions.

Very well I will read it tomorrow

 

[Oryonder]

The rest of your comments have been clever what possesed you on this one. Virtually every textual scholar who ever lived will say that lines of transmission and the ability to establish the reliability of the latest text in representing the earliest as closely as possible is the most important factor in establishing the probability of an event. I never said it is proof just a factor that effects the probability of the event.



Since I disagree and you won't produce it can we then just drop it.

By what justification do you have that mandates a certain number of words to be necessary. It was the exact number of words needed to communicate what was necessary.



It can and is claimed. proveing it would be hard but there are factors that argue the case.



Anyone who can look at the bona fides of the major textual scholars that have written commentaries and think them laughable is not a serious scholar and is relying on something besides well known facts for argumentation. This from a person who wants me to consider books we don't even have seriously.


Thats your opinion and it is in the minority of those who should know if anyone does.


His apparent contradiction with James is well known, his dissagreement with Jesus is very rarely mentioned. Why don't you list a verse or two and we will discuss it. The biblical narrative as a whole supports faith only. Jeses told the theif on the cross that he was justified and that guy never prefored one work other than belief. I do not agree with your assesment of Jesus.

His is the most popular and accepted commentary on the bible in history. I don't necessarily like him in particular. I chose him because bible critics love to discredit the messengers and he is the most credible.


I am not an expert on Constantine. I do know his input is extremely overblown by bible critics. Name instance that proves your point and we will discuss it.


Being that God can't be ruled out then your statement is false and for other reasons I will write in a minute. If you rule out the supernatural upfront that is bad scholarship and you need to be evaluating something besides the bible.


There is at least one view that rules out all your points in one blow. It is believed by many to be an allegorical story. I tend to believe in the literal interpretation but do not make hard claims on subjects this old.

Of course it is an allegorical story. This does not rule out my points but supports them. If the story of Noah is allegorical it is not Literal .. it did not happen in reality.

Jesus and James contradict Paul I have stated the verses to you previously and you have given no retort .. and there are numerous bona fide scholars that claim the same.

It took two seconds of searching on the internet get this info. Why have no not done this ? This was the first link on the list and I scanned it briefly. http://www.paulonhomosexuality.com/Enigma of Paul.pdf

This guy claims that few scholars take Paul seriously and many do not and he has loads of references.

As far as Constantine is concerned .. when he wants to put "homoosios" into the trinity doctrine Eusebius objects and so he exiles him.

Eusebius evenually relents but it was forced .. Arius was killed and this sent a pretty clear message (and by the Emperor's own words .. mess with me and your in big trouble basically)

The early Church fathers did not believe in the Trinity ..it was considered heresy in fact when Tertullian first introduced it round 200 AD.