Think About It

[Pacem]

And yes, since what Christians believe comes from the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God, the Bible is the only authoritative source for what we know about God, what His will is for our lives, and how we can come to Him.

 

[Nestorius]

I could ask you how God communicates his laws to you. I assume you would say through the True Holy Scripture (where else?!), and then we could enter into a legal discussion on what is scripture or what such and such passage means.

But I am more interested in the Natural Philosophy of yours. I have not heard of it anywhere else. It sounds like Satanism to me. Where did you learn this way of thinking? Maybe there is a philosopher that people learn this from? It does not sound self-evident or natural to me to act as if right or wrong did not exist or that species survival through **** was the best humankind could come up with on their own.

 

[Alezi]

What we were discussing is Christian values versus secular. I wanted to know where you get your morality, but you don't really seem to be very clear. Yet you want to assert that secularists and atheists have no values whatsoever.

You seem to like history. What's your opinion on the Greek Philosophers? Certainly Plato and Aristotle had fully developed ethical systems, not to mention the very popular Stoic movements in the Roman Empire. Whether you follow these teachings or not, there were many theories and ideas absorbed into traditional Christianity, especially the secondary writings and commentaries.

When in fact did it become considered that basis of Christian belief comes from the Bible and the Bible only? I can't think of a time before the Protestant Reformation that this became the case.

Can we assume that without the bible all the religious loonies like the OP would have any moral and ethical values?

 

[Pacem]

I could ask you how God communicates his laws to you. I assume you would say through the True Holy Scripture (where else?!), and then we could enter into a legal discussion on what is scripture or what such and such passage means.

But I am more interested in the Natural Philosophy of yours. I have not heard of it anywhere else. It sounds like Satanism to me. Where did you learn this way of thinking? Maybe there is a philosopher that people learn this from? It does not sound self-evident or natural to me to act as if right or wrong did not exist or that species survival through **** was the best humankind could come up with on their own.

Have you seriously not heard it anywhere else?? That is the foundation of any naturalistic belief that does not include a god of any sort. This not my natural philosophy at all, but that of every person that believes God does not and could not exist. Without God, it cannot be any way else. If you think differently, please elaborate. It is not Satanism, because that would be a belief in a deity, which is not what naturalistic thinking contains. Naturalistic views take evolution as fact, that everything arose by chance, and that, yes, **** among other things helps to purpetuate the species... and those that are weaker starve and die out, etc... This was the view of Hitler to the extreme.

 

[Nestorius]

Have you seriously not heard it anywhere else?? That is the foundation of any naturalistic belief that does not include a god of any sort. This not my natural philosophy at all, but that of every person that believes God does not and could not exist. Without God, it cannot be any way else. If you think differently, please elaborate. It is not Satanism, because that would be a belief in a deity, which is not what naturalistic thinking contains. Naturalistic views take evolution as fact, that everything arose by chance, and that, yes, **** among other things helps to purpetuate the species... and those that are weaker starve and die out, etc... This was the view of Hitler to the extreme.

If one makes 'the scientific' the 'objective' true world, opposing our 'subjective' everyday lives, then we would engage in the same metaphysical fallacy as the theologian by setting up a separate truth elsewhere. Like what the Nazis and Marxists did, turning their Science and Ideals into another Religion.

On the other hand, if we were abandoned by God, if he decided to conceal himself and retract his revelation, giving us no guidance on what he expected from us on how to live our lives, if he left us like a deadbeat Dad, then we'd be left alone amongst ourselves to figure out our own values without reference to him only to ourselves. Believers or not, our values would have to be atheist (but what does that atheism mean?!!).

If we elevate Man as the New God, the abomination of the Beast 666, that's elevating an Ideal, an Idol, replacing one religion with another.

An example of naturalistic atheist humanist philosophy that remains religious and ethical without being Idolatrous might be this: What is in my world that is Infinite and closest to the Divine is the Other. My life, my values, my death, its all just me finite and limited. You, on the other hand, are the only possibility of my coming close to God, as something infinite and transcendent. Only as an atheist, in the ethical relation with the Other, the YOU, without referring to the Deity as an intermediary, can we approach the Divine.

 

[Pacem]

The only thing with that is, God has never abandoned us, and He never will. He has proven that time and time again in yes, His Word. It is not true that we have nothing to go by but our own ideals and our own "truths," but we have what God has communicated to us in His Word. Also, God is not just an idle being that gave us that Word, then just sits back and watches us falter and fall. The reason God does not seem prevelant in our lives today, is because we've asked Him not to be.

'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?' - Anne Graham

Consider this:
You find that you have a leak in a pipe somewhere in your house. Since you cannot (hypathetically) fix it yourself, you call on a plumber to come and fix it. When the plumber arrives, you lock the door and keep him from coming in. You still have the leaky pipe and want it fixed, but as a result of the locked door, the plumber can't do the job you asked him to do.
In the same way, you might ask God to come and help you in your time of distress and need, to help you find what is right and what is wrong. But when He comes, you lock the door to your heart. As with the plumber, how do you expect Him to help you if you will not let Him in to do what you asked?
The only difference is, the door to your heart only has a knob on the inside. God does not force His way in, but leaves the decision to you whether or not to let Him in. But, unlike the plumber, God never gives up, and will always knock at the door to your heart.
We may give up on Him, reject Him, even despise Him... but He will never abandon nor forsake us, and will always love us with a love beyond our understanding.
It is up to us to accept that love.

 

[Nestorius]

But we were talking about atheist values. I attempted to show you an atheistic iconclasism more religious and ethical than most religions.

Maybe that's unrealistic or too weird. Okay, so maybe without God, there are no values. What's the only value left? Nietzsche would say it is the will to power, would he not?

If you read the Antichrist, you would know this is how he interprets the Christian religion. The Antichrist, the opponent of Jesus Christ, is the Christian Religion according to Nietzsche.

Was Hitler a disciple of Nietzsche? Actually no, Nazis just took various passages out of context to fit their political ends. Nietzsche makes it very clear in his writings his contempt for antisemitism and German Nationalism. How did the Nietzsche Nazi Cult develop? Because his sister, whom he did not get along with, got ownership of his writings after death and she was a ardent proto-Nazi. She admitted she did not really understand her brother's writings.

In my opinion, Nietzsche was one of the last great Christian writers. Just as Martin Luther was a great Christian even though he called traditional established Christianity the work of Satan, so was Nietzsche acting in that same tradition. In fact his criticism of Christianity was a favor to Christians, giving them a chance to survive the death of God in metaphysics.

 

[Nestorius]

Whether or not God is manifest in existence, there is still the political sphere. Christian political ideology is not based on the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus Christ. It would be impossible to base a society where everyone lives as Jesus said. What would happen to the military? Rather, Christian political ideology is based upon Scripture as a whole and ALSO the historical present situation. In fact, the spirit of the most prominent Christian politicians is nearly always distinctively Old Testament style, extreme in measures of war and in punishment, especially against the non-believer.

The original article posted was not honest. It was based on fabricated sources.

It was propaganda for giving more power to Christians and Christian ideology in politics and society. Was it not? The premise is that secularists have too much power and Christians need more.

 

[mutau]

my opinion is that, the having something to believe in is just fine. But the trouble starts when you have a human thinking that someone else should be listening and thinking as they do. maybe religion might be better if we didn't make it an institution.

(whew i said it) now i can go to hell like all the nuns used to tell me.

 

[Pacem]

The original article posted was not honest. It was based on fabricated sources.

It was propaganda for giving more power to Christians and Christian ideology in politics and society. Was it not? The premise is that secularists have too much power and Christians need more.

That is not entirely true...
I appologize for not responding sooner, as I was focusing on other things at the time.

The first half of the origional article in this post is indeed true, and quoted by Ben Stein. The second half, as pointed out immediately after that first article, was a later addition. To me, there is nothing wrong with that, since the origional intent of the article was not to say that Ben Stein wrote and quoted the entire text, but to point out something about our currenet condition.

 

[Pacem]

It would be impossible to base a society where everyone lives as Jesus said. What would happen to the military? Rather, Christian political ideology is based upon Scripture as a whole and ALSO the historical present situation. In fact, the spirit of the most prominent Christian politicians is nearly always distinctively Old Testament style, extreme in measures of war and in punishment, especially against the non-believer.

Is this indeed true?
One only needs to take a look at the history of our country's founding and developement to realize that it could have come from nowhere else but Christianity. Also, it came not mainly from the Old Testament but the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Granted, today, it may seem far different, and more towards OT and even secular systems, but in the beginning it was through Jesus that this great country of ours was born.
Consider why the colonists and pilgrims came here in the first place. To worship and found compacts and constitutions whose main source came from the Bible.

And, if I may, quote what was said earlier... none of the advancements in our modern society today could have come from nowhere else but the Christian faith.

And the world has never been the same ever since.
So much of the greatness of the west... in ideas, in reforms, science, music, the arts... all come back from the influence of Jesus Christ. Perhaps one of the greatest impacts of Jesus that rise above all others is the creation of a giving, caring culture.
Jesus Christ has been the most powerful influence in the history of the world. The surest proof of the reality and the majesty of Christ today, are the people that are closest to Him, beautiful human lives, like that of Mother Theresa (forgive spelling), among many others.

Thus, the impact of Christianity begins with those lives changed by the transforming power of the gospel. Drug addicts are throwing down drugs in the name of Jesus.
Alcoholics are cracking bottles and never drinking again in the name of Jesus. Husbands and wives are coming back together and children are coming home in the name of Jesus.
In Dr. E.V. Hill's church in Watts, Los Angeles, he says that if he has 70 choir members there on Sunday, 30 of them have had experience of having been delivered form alcohol, from dope, from every kind of sin you can name.

Another example of Christ's influence is in any public library. Scan all the thousands of volumes that are there. Every one of them has at least an indirect reference to Jesus.
How is this so?
Jesus' coming to earth divided time into B.C. - Before Christ, and A.D. - Anno Donimi, which means, "In the Year of Our Lord" (not After Death).
One of the important contributions of Christianity is that it spread the ideas of the Jews into all the world.
"The notion of history in a line rather than in a cycle, or a simple notion like the weekend, which comes from the notion of a "Sabbath," or the notion of "covenant," which has given rise to the American idea of "Constitution." There are many, many of these things that are primarily the gifts of the Jews that were mediated (taken over) and distributed to the world by the explosive growth of the church."
"It is almost impossible to imagine the depravity of a world that had never been exposed to Christianity. The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is, just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around?"
Furthermore, Christianity has given the world many great expressions of art. The most depicted event of all time is the crucifixion of Jesus. Christianity has given art some of its most noble themes, and has also created great works of art in stone, as in the great cathedrals, such as Notre Dame in Paris, or the National Cathedral in Washington D.C.
And then, of course, music has been greatly impacted by the Christian faith. Even some atheists will acknowledge this.
"Supposing there had been no Jesus... our musical tradition would be infinately weaker. Church music and hymn singing, even to those who are not harty Christians one of the wonderous expressions of the human soul."
Has Christianity been anti-scientific? Many would agree.
Absolutly not. The fact of the matter is, Christianity gave birth to modern science. In fact, modern science is a GIFT from Jesus Christ.
It would be impossible to overestimate the full impact of science of modern life. However, what most people don't realize is that science is essentially a Christian invention, with initial input from the ancient Greeks.
"It's certainly true, by and large, and in the English speaking world, the founders of science would have expressed fairly strong religious views. They felt this is a world made by a Creator who has impressed the Creator's will on the world, from outside."
Critics frequently point to the Roman Catholic Church's mistreatment of the astronomer Galileo in the 17th century as evidence that Christianity is anti-science.
Galileo verified that the sun was the center of the solar system, a view which was at odds with that of the church. Not only is this something that the church has appologized for, but critics often overlook the fact that Galileo himself was a devout Christian, and agreed that the Bible set the standard for truth.

Almost all of the scientists were Christians. The idea that people were, by their science, finding out the glories of God's creation is one of long, long standing.
Since the rise of darwinism in the mid 19th century, it has often been perceived that faith and science are at odds with one-another. But even today, there are thousands of reputable scientists who are believers in Jesus Christ. And in the early days of modern science, virtually no one saw a conflict between faith and science.
"Just about every major branch of science that has been created was origionated by people who believed in the Bible."
Indeed, some of the most prominent scientists who ever lived were strong believers in God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Here is a list of such men, along with the branch of science they created:
Louis Pasteur - Bacteriology
Johannes Kepler - Celestial Mechanics
Lord Kelvin - Energetics
Blaise Pascal - Hyrostatics
Charles Babbage - Computer Science
Lord Joseph Lister - Antiseptic Surgery
Robert Boyle - Chemistry
James Simpson - Anesthesiology
Matthew Fontaine Maury - Oceanography
Samuel Morse - Telegraphy
Sir Isaac Newton - Calculus and Dyamics

 

[Pacem]

my opinion is that, the having something to believe in is just fine. But the trouble starts when you have a human thinking that someone else should be listening and thinking as they do. maybe religion might be better if we didn't make it an institution.

(whew i said it) now i can go to hell like all the nuns used to tell me.

Summed up, I would take that to mean that it does not matter what you believe, as long as you do not push it on others, and that in your overall character you are a good person.
That is like something a person on Sonoma told me once, that it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong, as long as you believe, or as she put it, "be."
That said, if it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, what's to say Christianity is not as valid as any other religion? There wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

Truth is an exclusive thing. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Either one is true and the other false, or else the first is in error and the latter of sound doctrine. Both cannot be true.

 

[Nestorius]

Is this indeed true?
One only needs to take a look at the history of our country's founding and developement to realize that it could have come from nowhere else but Christianity. Also, it came not mainly from the Old Testament but the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Granted, today, it may seem far different, and more towards OT and even secular systems, but in the beginning it was through Jesus that this great country of ours was born.
Consider why the colonists and pilgrims came here in the first place. To worship and found compacts and constitutions whose main source came from the Bible.

And, if I may, quote what was said earlier... none of the advancements in our modern society today could have come from nowhere else but the Christian faith.

Christianity and Christians ruled Europe unchallenged for over a millennium before the founding of America. Yes, they made pretty church music, but also they also executed people for deviating from the state religion. Yes, all the great European scientists were Christian but speaking anything publicly offensive to Christianity would get them killed. Yes, some of America's original settlers were religious fanatics, but they were running away from the persecutions of other religious fanatics, and once set up in the New World, proceeded persecute others who did not conform to their beliefs.

It seems you want to take anything good that happened in history, say this is Christian, and then ignore and evade responsibility for anything bad.

The Scientific and Industrial Revolution could never have happened without the abandonment and rejection of Christian rule. Yes, those Christians, the one's you conveniently fail to mention. Your quoted article is a horribly offensive joke bordering on evil in its willful ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[Nestorius]

And this amazes me:

Another example of Christ's influence is in any public library. Scan all the thousands of volumes that are there. Every one of them has at least an indirect reference to Jesus.
How is this so?
Jesus' coming to earth divided time into B.C. - Before Christ, and A.D. - Anno Donimi, which means, "In the Year of Our Lord" (not After Death).
One of the important contributions of Christianity is that it spread the ideas of the Jews into all the world.

With that sort of logic, I'll tell you some Gods that must be far more influential than Jesus. Namely, Tyr, Odin, Thor, Freya, Saturn.... Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Oh yeah, the Sun and the Moon as well. Its interesting the Christian Sabbath is the same day set aside for the Sun God.

 

[Pacem]

Oh yeah, the Sun and the Moon as well. Its interesting the Christian Sabbath is the same day set aside for the Sun God.

You forget that the Sabbath was origionally set by God as Saturday, not Sunday.
It was only later on that it was changed to Sunday, in remembrance and honor of the day Christ rose from the dead after being crucified on the cross.
Yes, the days of the week may be named after other gods, but it was not the Christians that named the days of the week (as far as I know).

Christianity and Christians ruled Europe unchallenged for over a millennium before the founding of America. Yes, they made pretty church music, but also they also executed people for deviating from the state religion. Yes, all the great European scientists were Christian but speaking anything publicly offensive to Christianity would get them killed. Yes, some of America's original settlers were religious fanatics, but they were running away from the persecutions of other religious fanatics, and once set up in the New World, proceeded persecute others who did not conform to their beliefs.

It seems you want to take anything good that happened in history, say this is Christian, and then ignore and evade responsibility for anything bad.

The Scientific and Industrial Revolution could never have happened without the abandonment and rejection of Christian rule. Yes, those Christians, the one's you conveniently fail to mention. Your quoted article is a horribly offensive joke bordering on evil in its willful ignorance and dishonesty.

In response to your accusation of me leaving out the bad stuff "christians" have done:

Critics of Christianity ask, "What about the Crusades, or the Inquisition?"
"There is no excuse for any of that. They are awful. But, they are a violation of the teaching of Jesus. they are NOT a demonstration of the teaching of Jesus."
"Where ever Jesus's teachings were incorporated more directly, this never happened. It's a case of the abborations that caused these terrible developments. When you add the credit side of the ledger against the negative exceptions, you find a vast preponderance, to show that if Christ had never been born, we would have a much greater negative side of the ledger than we have today."

In stead of hurling insults and trying to belittle (as many non-christians tend to do, but not all), why don't you instead try to enlighten me (minus the insults) of what I've left out?

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. - Matthew 7:12

 

[mutau]

Summed up, I would take that to mean that it does not matter what you believe, as long as you do not push it on others, and that in your overall character you are a good person.
That is like something a person on Sonoma told me once, that it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong, as long as you believe, or as she put it, "be."
That said, if it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, what's to say Christianity is not as valid as any other religion? There wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

Truth is an exclusive thing. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Either one is true and the other false, or else the first is in error and the latter of sound doctrine. Both cannot be true.

I never mentioned that Christianity or any religion is/isn't a valid religion. I think any religion (past or present) is valid. What messed things up, is when you have a mass of humans trying to impose it on others to believe it. Every religion is good, even if it has elements that other religions look down on. Evil is only from a point of view that is not indigenous. I don't think we can call someone evil if we don't know of them, as in having that person in our personal experiences/history. We don't know their circumstances, culture or lives.

To say that someone is a good person, well, everyone is a good person. They are only evil in someone else's eyes. and that's where church (congregation of man, determining what should be thought) went wrong.

What is true can only be determined by how many was there to say it was true. If none are there, then only none is true.

 

[mutau]

Summed up, I would take that to mean that it does not matter what you believe, as long as you do not push it on others, and that in your overall character you are a good person.
That is like something a person on Sonoma told me once, that it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong, as long as you believe, or as she put it, "be."
That said, if it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, what's to say Christianity is not as valid as any other religion? There wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

Truth is an exclusive thing. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Either one is true and the other false, or else the first is in error and the latter of sound doctrine. Both cannot be true.

I never mentioned that Christianity or any religion is/isn't a valid religion. I think any religion (past or present) is valid. What messed things up, is when you have a mass of humans trying to impose it on others to believe it.

What is true can only be determined by how many was there to say it was true. If none are there, then only none is true.

 

[Pacem]

I never mentioned that Christianity or any religion is/isn't a valid religion. I think any religion (past or present) is valid. What messed things up, is when you have a mass of humans trying to impose it on others to believe it.

What is true can only be determined by how many was there to say it was true. If none are there, then only none is true.

That can be true, I will give you that. And forgive me if I had misunderstood your statement.

To me, the only way that all religions can be valid is if the "truths" of them are indeed true. Like I said before, no two "truths" can be valid if they contradict each other.
No matter how many people believe in a "truth," it will never make the subject true. If over half the world believed the sun is blue and the sky orange (at midday), it still would not make it true. True "truth" can be verifyable and able to be backed up.

 

[Pacem]

I offer this thought:
All the drive-by shootings that happen... ****s, murder, inhumane torture, theft, fraud, vandalism, terrorism... in any of these cases, are true Christians involved... those that most closely adhere to the examples Jesus set forth?
Or are the majority of these done by those that do not believe in Jesus, who choose to reject God, a God that would dare tell them what to do, who would rather live the way they want and do what they want, however way they want to do it?

It's not wrong unless you're caught.

 

[mutau]

To me, the only way that all religions can be valid is if the "truths" of them are indeed true. Like I said before, no two "truths" can be valid if they contradict each other.

If that is the case, there is no absolute truth. If you have 2 sides, each to believe that they know the truth, then by your logic, there is no truth. Therefore, any religion that contradicts the other is false (ie Christianity and Islam), just for examples. THAT is not my belief. AH, there i go again. Beliefs.

No matter how many people believe in a "truth," it will never make the subject true. If over half the world believed the sun is blue and the sky orange (at midday), it still would not make it true. True "truth" can be verifyable and able to be backed up.

This can also be said in regards to Jesus. There is no hard proof that he ever existed. We have writings, teachings, things called relics, but none of it is hard proof. So by your logic, it doesn't matter that so many people believe in him, because it will never make him true.

 

[Nestorius]

The history of the West since the rise of Christianity is a complex subject and I have issues with caricaturing it as a continuing movement of rising progress corresponding with the enlightened adoption of Christian principles.

These epochs are different in each their own time, and Christianity itself has been constantly reinterpreted to fit with the times.

For example:

1. Jesus' religion while alive: Judaism (a reformer of that time.. Judaism has an interesting history itself)
2. The religion of his followers after death: a sect of Judaism
3. The heretical Jewish offshoot cult persecuted by the Romans, or rather cults, as there were no fixed scripture or canon. Many variants of belief, a continuous gradient.

4a. The State Religion adopted by Constantine in 325, the elevation of Nicene Christians, and their eventual victory over all other sects and religions competing for state recognition. Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire is a hugely complex subject in its own right, from Constantine to Theodosius the Great and onward. This is the age scripture became canonized, theological ideas became developed, where the religion became fixed enough that it even became possible enough to have heresy. One thing to keep in mind, which I find fascinating is throughout this whole time, Christianity rivaled with a developed Roman Paganism and Judaism, but was predominately considered the religion of the Cities of the Roman Empire. Out in the country and outside the Empire there was no Christianity to speak of. But this Christianity, to learn what its beliefs were, you'd be better off reading St Augustine than the 'Bible'.

4b. Christianity as the Roman State Religion after the fall of the West - The Christian religion survived as, it existed as, it continued to develop as the State Religion of the Roman Empire whose capital was located in Constantinople. In the 6th through 7th centuries, the traditional homeland and center of Christianity, the East, continued to become more Christian. The Bishop of Rome had nominal precedence in the Church, but he shared authority with the four other patriarchs of Christendom: Constantonple, Antioch, Jerulsalem, and Alexandria. Alexandria, the New York City of Late Antiquity, was the center of Christian development and culture for this entire period.

This Christianity wasn't so much concerned about what Jesus taught a much as understanding the actual nature of God and his relation to Man, a Greek philosophical version of Christianity, the hammering out of the theological basis. Jesus did mellow out the Roman Empire, though.... political murder became frowned upon, deposed Emperors were blinded or castrated and exiled instead of tortured to death, gladiator fights were banned, war was not so gloried, slaves were treated better...

5a. The Dark Ages in the West - Pagans take over the West. Not Roman Pagans, secular, philosophical and tolerant, sad and superstitious. No, these Barbarian Pagans worshiped Gods that required blood sacrifice, they worshiped war, they exterminated all trace of Christianity in England and wrecked the West enough that, as you mentioned, knowledge becomes preserved in monasteries, as the Christians become the only literate preservers of the Roman Heritage. The Irish monasteries... these were the educated Christians of the Empire, no where to go but to that lonely island, then eventually coming back to reconvert people lapsed back into the old gods. What was the Christianity these monks followed, what did they preach? Not much about Jesus. What they preached, what Barbarian tribes enjoyed and were awed by was Christianity as the Old Testament, as Judaism, as the State Religion of the old Empire.

5b Throughout the Dark Ages, the 'Pope' was officially subject to the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor, but territorial remote and in backwaters of civilization. ONLY AT THIS TIME, when the Empire disintegrated in the West, did Christians start seriously trying to convert non-Romans and barbarian Pagans.

5c We are leaving out the Franks. To leave out Gaul, we are leaving out a lot.

6. The rise of Islam. We are only at the 7th century. At this time, we have:

A. Anglo-Saxon 'priests' in England celebrating mass with drinking horns, worshiping the God of the Old Testament along with their old gods.
B. The ending of Arian Christianity, a rival church not subject to the Emperor practiced originally by a lot of the original non-Roman barbarian settlers like the Spanish Visigoths
C. The Christianization of the French warrior aristocracy, still a very Old Testament religion having very little to do with Jesus and a lot more with the God of Israel giving good luck in war, but they do adopt the religion of their subjects, the Gallo-Romans, even as the Gallo-Romans adopt a Frankish cultural identity.
D. A state of affairs in Europe where the average person would have no clue the difference between the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.. one God is a revolutionary belief enough, apparently, especially where literacy is so low.
E. The True Church, the Church of Christianity that ALL Christians belong or resist is still that Church in Constantinople under the jurisdiction of the Emperor and Patriarch. This land (roughly the extent of the Eastern Empire plus North Africa) is the core of Christiandom.
F. A dissenting state of affairs where the Greek (Roman) Christians argue and fight over dense theological issues that have nothing to do with the Bible, as at this time the 'Bible' is still not completely formed, opinions about it are not solidified, and NO ONE considered it the sole source of beliefs.
G. An alienation of the East... Constantinople tries to keep all the Christains believing the same thing, yet the differences between Rome and Alexandria are too great.

6. The irruption of Islam in the East. The Roman Empire withdraws its legions as it loses battle after battle, its territory shrinks to approximately the boundaries of present day Turkey. The rise of the Iconoclastic Emperors

7. Islam in the West - the invading armies of Islam are beat back at the battle of Potiers in 735, lines are drawn, at this time Christianity is a full-on religion of a warrior aristocracy and its subjects having more to do with political and economic organization than anything having to do with books like the Gospels.

8. Middle Ages - Society as Theocracy organized along Christian lines as Christianity was then interpreted. The schism of the Church that created two churches, the Orthodox and Catholic....

9. The reformation, the wars between Protestants and Catholics, the humanists... at this time, only this time, and often only as heresy, did people start thinking about Jesus and the Gospels. The leaders of the Reformation certainly were not if you look how they conducted themselves.

10. About this time people started interpreting Christianity as something based upon the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ. Modern Christianity.

So I'm saying there are many epochs of Christianity, but at most times in its history it existed as a STATE RELIGION, with a tradition based partly, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY upon the Gospel and Jesus.

You want to disagree these beliefs were authentically Christian, that's fine, but then you are asserting your particular recent sect of Christianity is the true one and everyone elses through all history is the false one, which is a pretty typical assertion for Christians to make. But you want to talk about the role Christianity in history, you have to take them into account.

We have not even come near American evangelicalism.

 

[Nestorius]

I offer this thought:
All the drive-by shootings that happen... ****s, murder, inhumane torture, theft, fraud, vandalism, terrorism... in any of these cases, are true Christians involved... those that most closely adhere to the examples Jesus set forth?
Or are the majority of these done by those that do not believe in Jesus, who choose to reject God, a God that would dare tell them what to do, who would rather live the way they want and do what they want, however way they want to do it?

Basically, I'm saying THAT religion, where AS Christians we follow the example of Jesus as a peaceful lover of Man, where the Gospels are placed as the highest authority over the rest of the Bible, is a very new religion, something that developed alongside the development of our modern world. You just don't see it anywhere in history before a few hundred years ago. We can discuss THAT religion if you wish though. I would say modern secular values sort of co-developed alongside it.

 

[Pacem]

I'm going to answer two posts in one here, so bear with me.

Thank you, Nestorius, for taking the time to write what you did. You have obviously put a lot of thought into it. I will in no way deny how Christianity has grown and developed over the centuries. Some of the ages where not much thought was put into the saving of others is something that saddened God greatly. The past as you have described it is not the first time that this has happened.

In the Old Testament, we see Israel, God's own chosen people, go away from Him to worship other false gods and come back to Him over and over again. Even in the New Testament, we see some churches moving away from the origional teachings of both Christ and the Apostles, some to a degree that they were hindering the Gospel message rather than spreading it. This has happened many times since Creation, and is still happening today, sadly, in many churches in the US and elsewhere.

Does this disqualify Christianity as the truth? It is true that in the time of Constantine, there were many churches, or "sects," that had different views of what they worshipped, and some even had different texts (there were many various other texts floating around at the time of Constantine). It wasn't this way in the very beginning in the time of the founding of the first churches right after Christ's death.
Constantine brought together the Counsil of Nicea in order to put a remedy to this, in which the texts were gathered and studied closely. Our Bible as we see it today came largely in part from that council. Texts were studied to verify origional authorship, as well as the doctine they produced, whether or not they were contradictory. Most of the "lost gospels" that float around today are obvious contradictions to the "true Gospel" that exists today. One of the main reasons we can rely on the Bible as it is compiled today is that, through the translations, they can be traced back (through over 50k pieces of writings) to the origional manuscripts. The four Gospels were found to have been written by their name-sakes (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) as well as the various epistles. The same can be said for the OT writings.

Now, as far as the belief of Christianity being a relatively new religion, with many of its aspects taken, it is believed, from various mystery pagan cults and religions before Christianity, this idea is destroyed by the finding of the Ebla Tablets.
The Ebla Tablets were written around 2300 BC and are at least 4310 years old, and are the oldest findings in the area of religion, stating that monotheism (worship of a single, all-powerful deity) was first, and contain the oldest creation accounts outside of the Bible, predating the once oldest accounts of Babylonia by 600 years, and even backs up the patriarchal narratives.
Quoted in these tablets is this passage:

Lord of heaven and earth:
the earth was not, you created it,
the light of day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not [yet] made exist.

Whats more, the oldest accounts of creation most closely mirror the Bible's account
where other accounts don't even come close.
The names of Ur, Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plane, are listed
in the EXACT ORDER they appear in the Bible, proving these were not made-up cities to simply tell a moral story, and also contain the Biblical names of Adam, Eve and Noah among others.
The Ebla Tablets also destroy the notion that there was no writing at the time of Moses, since the Ebla Tablets date to 1400 years before Moses. This is further reinforced by the fact that Moses was in Egypt, and Egypt had a fully developed writing system, as well as advanced mathematics.

On to the next post.

If that is the case, there is no absolute truth. If you have 2 sides, each to believe that they know the truth, then by your logic, there is no truth. Therefore, any religion that contradicts the other is false (ie Christianity and Islam), just for examples. THAT is not my belief. AH, there i go again. Beliefs.

When I said both cannot be true, what I meant was that one would naturally be false while the other is true. Of course, two "truths" can both be false, while the real truth remains out there to be attained.

If there is no absolute truth, is that an absolute truth?

If you say that nothing can be known, in your haste you said that truth was impossible. And is it true that truth is impossible? For, if no proposition is true, then at least one proposition is true--the proposition, namely, that no proposition is true.
If truth is impossible, therefore, it follows that we have already attained it.

 

[Nestorius]

In the Old Testament, we see Israel, God's own chosen people, go away from Him to worship other false gods and come back to Him over and over again. Even in the New Testament, we see some churches moving away from the origional teachings of both Christ and the Apostles, some to a degree that they were hindering the Gospel message rather than spreading it. This has happened many times since Creation, and is still happening today, sadly, in many churches in the US and elsewhere.

Does this disqualify Christianity as the truth? Iis true that in the time of Constantine, there were many churches, or "sects," that had different views of what they worshipped, and some even had different texts (there were many various other texts floating around at the time of Constantine). It wasn't this way in the very beginning in the time of the founding of the first churches right after Christ's death.
Constantine brought together the Counsil of Nicea in order to put a remedy to this, in which the texts were gathered and studied closely. Our Bible as we see it today came largely in part from that council. Texts were studied to verify origional authorship, as well as the doctine they produced, whether or not they were contradictory. Most of the "lost gospels" that float around today are obvious contradictions to the "true Gospel" that exists today. One of the main reasons we can rely on the Bible as it is compiled today is that, through the translations, they can be traced back (through over 50k pieces of writings) to the origional manuscripts. The four Gospels were found to have been written by their name-sakes (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) as well as the various epistles. The same can be said for the OT writings.

You talk about a deviation from the true teachings as if there were a time when they were followed. If it were following the Gospel scriptures, Christianity couldn't have become itself until after it became the religion of the Roman Empire (after they were compiled and written down).

From 325 AD until a few hundred years ago, Christianity was the most powerful institution in the West. This religion was not just a collection of Gospel texts, it was much more. A lot more secondary literature as well. And a way of political organization and an outlook on life.


Only after the Protestant Reformation was the Christian tradition destroyed and forgotten enough that people started making up a version of Christianity based solely on the Gospels with a minor emphasis on the Old Testament.

So what you say is a minor deviation from the 'true teaching' is really Christianity as understood for its entire documented pre-modern existence.

I'm trying to tell you, AT NO POINT IN HISTORY were Christianity and the Gospels of Jesus Christ ever understood like they are today, until the last few hundred years. The Christianity of Constantine was something else... similar but different.

Now, as far as the belief of Christianity being a relatively new religion, with many of its aspects taken, it is believed, from various mystery pagan cults and religions before Christianity, this idea is destroyed by the finding of the Ebla Tablets.
The Ebla Tablets were written around 2300 BC and are at least 4310 years old, and are the oldest findings in the area of religion, stating that monotheism (worship of a single, all-powerful deity) was first, and contain the oldest creation accounts outside of the Bible, predating the once oldest accounts of Babylonia by 600 years, and even backs up the patriarchal narratives.
Quoted in these tablets is this passage:
Quote:
Lord of heaven and earth:
the earth was not, you created it,
the light of day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not [yet] made exist.
Whats more, the oldest accounts of creation most closely mirror the Bible's account
where other accounts don't even come close.
The names of Ur, Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plane, are listed
in the EXACT ORDER they appear in the Bible, proving these were not made-up cities to simply tell a moral story, and also contain the Biblical names of Adam, Eve and Noah among others.

I'm saying Gospel based Christianity is new. New as in four or five hundred years old at the most.

One thing you are doing which I find distorted is that you bring up the Old Testament history as if it were the history of the Christians. It wasn't. But yes, some parts of the Old Testament are ancient if not stemming from older more ancient faiths. Like the Sumerian religion. Don't forget the Hellenisation of Judiasm (macabees) that occured post-capitivity after Alexander the Great. There was great Greek influence in the Old Testament even before Jesus.

I do see the Old Testament as an important historical document, I agree with you there. It impressed the Romans enough that they adopted it.

 

[Pacem]

One thing you are doing which I find distorted is that you bring up the Old Testament history as if it were the history of the Christians. It wasn't.

The Old Testament actually is part of the history of the Christians, because the Old Testament and the New Testament compliment each other.
Jesus Himself recognized the Old testament scriptural text as part of the devine Word of God, and referenced it many times during His ministry on earth. For example, Jesus references numerous times what OT prophets have said, and how they had been fulfilled in the NT. In yet numerous other places, the NT text tells how OT prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus even stood up in the synagogue and recited scripture from the Old Testament concering Himself. The Old Testament is repleat with references to God, and stories of what God has done throughout OT history.
To say that the Old Testament is not a part of Christian history, you would have to take out these parts, all of the prophecies concerning Jesus, all the prophecies concerning the end times, which Jesus agreed with 100% (no prophecy in the Bible to date has ever been false), and all references to God Himself, for the New Testament agrees with the Old that it is the same God throughout.

 

[Pacem]

As far as the Greeks having an influence in the Old Testament, this is not the case. The Old Testament was written in aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Nestorius]

The Old Testament actually is part of the history of the Christians, because the Old Testament and the New Testament compliment each other.
Jesus Himself recognized the Old testament scriptural text as part of the devine Word of God, and referenced it many times during His ministry on earth. For example, Jesus references numerous times what OT prophets have said, and how they had been fulfilled in the NT. In yet numerous other places, the NT text tells how OT prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus even stood up in the synagogue and recited scripture from the Old Testament concering Himself. The Old Testament is repleat with references to God, and stories of what God has done throughout OT history.
To say that the Old Testament is not a part of Christian history, you would have to take out these parts, all of the prophecies concerning Jesus, all the prophecies concerning the end times, which Jesus agreed with 100% (no prophecy in the Bible to date has ever been false), and all references to God Himself, for the New Testament agrees with the Old that it is the same God throughout.

True, the Old Testament is part of Christian historical tradition but there were no Christians during Old Testament times, just Jews. Jesus was a Jew. He was very upset by the secularization, Hellenization and paganization of the Jewish religion. He spoke out against it and made enemies among the establishment. They killed him for it.

Many Jews today as I understand consider Jesus to have been a great and important Rabbi for doing what he did. The interpretation they have of OT prophecies however may differ from yours.

As far as the Greeks having an influence in the Old Testament, this is not the case. The Old Testament was written in aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek and Hebrew.

A little off there. The original text of the OT I believe WAS written in Hebrew. Most of it was. The early Christians however used a Greek translation called the Septuagint .

The New Testament was written in Greek.

There are some things not very clear in the Old Testament, but Israel was under Greek dominion for several hundred years, it absorbed a lot of Hellenistic culture, then it revolted under the Maccabees, but then through internal fighting the Romans were invited in.

 

[Pacem]

This has been a thrilling discussion.
I don't know about you, but I have thoroughly enjoyed it. It really gets the old brain juices flowing.
It is not often that I get into deep discussions like this. I was once in ICQ with a fellow from Siege Perilous for 2 hours straight getting into deep discussion about the origin of everything.

 

[Nestorius]

That's why I love the stratics forums. I spend too much time here though.

 

[mutau]

this would have been better if it was infront of a camp fire, with a beer, under the night sky.

 

[Aran]

This thread started stupid, and got ********. Congrats!

 

[Nenime]

Oh come on, Aran, you troll. This was an interesting discussion, admit it.

Although some posts were a little lengthy, I really enjoyed reading it. Brought much intellectual insight and inspiration to me. Thank you.

 

[Aran]

I didn't read anything between my reply way back and the reply I just made.

Didn't need to.

 

[The Fallout]

Are you laughing yet?

Yes, this article is complete rubbish. I mean seriously...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Sadly crime isn't on some insane raise like the claim you support says. It rose a lot about 40-50 years ago (possibly because we actually recorded it more) but it lowered in the nineties and has yet to make some kind of jump that people continuously say.

It has been proven over and over that using corporal punishment on children is the worst method, of child rearing, and if used carries much greater risks then time-out, just because a man supports the rights of children has nothing to do with why his son committed suicide.

Our country is very THEIST, atheism is in the insane minority.

Sadly all these self-justifying religious zealots will believe this article to be truth. Now, I have many religious friends and I have nothing against religious folk (I am agnostic) but when they spread lies and propaganda to support their hysterical fear mongering view, I have a problem.

 

[Nenime]

That's why I said the discussion was interesting. While Pacem's speech was passionate and inspiring, he was also confronted with logical errors and implausibilities, especially through Nestorius' excellent argumentation. Other posters gave good input, too. Title says 'Think About It'.

 

[The Fallout]

That's why I said the discussion was interesting. While Pacem's speech was passionate and inspiring, he was also confronted with logical errors and implausibilities, especially through Nestorius' excellent argumentation. Other posters gave good input, too. Title says 'Think About It'.

You're right.

 

[Mishkam]

For your second comment, have you overlooked the fact that in all of history, the Bible has not been proven wrong even once? And in fact, that everything that has come up against Christianity and the Bible ultimately proven woefully inadequate?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!



thanks I needed that.

Man created god.
organized religion is a con.
you are an idiot.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Laughs better who laughs last...

The most funny thing in all, is that if what you say is right "mishkam" (and its subconsciously accepted by 99% people in society), then...

rofl...

That means that everything that happens in the world was already choosen to happen by people who control everything, I mean... EVERYTHING.

Because the bible prophecy is all clear, and its all happening right now.

Theres a freakin statue of ISHTAR in front of newyork city...

 

[Mishkam]

Laughs better who laughs last...

The most funny thing in all, is that if what you say is right "mishkam" (and its subconsciously accepted by 99% people in society), then...

rofl...

That means that everything that happens in the world was already choosen to happen by people who control everything, I mean... EVERYTHING.

Because the bible prophecy is all clear, and its all happening right now.

Theres a freakin statue of ISHTAR in front of newyork city...

whatever room.... they should pad the walls.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Thats a classic derogatory, senseless, futile and I even would say, defamatory post.

You are insulting me, if you don't want to discuss, why did you HAVE to add your grain of salt ?

 

[Mishkam]

keep talkin... all I hear is the teacher from the Peanuts...

waah waaah waah waah waah

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

You might as well try to proove to me that there is no similitude between the statue of liberty and the greek goddess aphrodite, or ishtar. Or that the torch was never used to represent Osiris... that the star crown is just a creative design because it looked cool... Thats is not also in france and in asia, thats its sitting on a 11 pointed star for no reason, and that its not freemasons that built it, with a kind of ritualistic ceremony. That its lit in red at dusk just because it looks so spectacular with the sunset...

Of course you also seemingly can insult other people without having consequences, because you are a "legend"...

Lets see, I'm not about to loose patience, better luck next time.

 

[Mishkam]

similitude

tard.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Thanks for acquiesing with your silence.

 

[Mishkam]

you still talking?

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Are you hitting on me ?

 

[Mishkam]

I prefer interacting with people who can string an intelligible sentence together.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Coming from a guy who has a sperm as an avatar pic, and a desecrated and half eaten by zombie Jesus as signature...

I'll take it as a compliment.

 

[Mishkam]

take it however you want to take it frenchie

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Want to have the last word ?

It usually is important for people who like to hypnose others...

I'm not intimidated by you, I'll make palabras with whatever land-guage I like.