Christianity

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

Just let me point out the humour in this discussion. What if God created the world but wasn't Jesus, and what if Jesus never even existed. And if God then came down to earth, even though I find it rather mean to let us belive wrongly for so long, what would he say?
"Hello guys, sorry I'm late. You have belived in a dude that never existed. Haha! And btw the Bible is totally wrong, just through it out the window. Or, wait, just belive in whatever you like in the Bible."
Then we would stand there, a bit ashamed.

I've even used something similar to this in a discussion before. Then I've used even a further step with it.

Imagine if god was the negative one, and Lucifer was the angel who saw god as being cruel and vindictive to humans and felt he wanted to break away from god's cruelty and try to save humans from god's wrath.

They absolutely hate it when you turn it around this way. Because they are convinced there is only one way it can be, but I just presented it another way. On top of that I used the bible to do it. Showing where god is very cruel to humanity and set up the argument where Lucifer would be the sort of soldier with a conscious against the evil general.

It's funny, not because I actually believe this is what is going on, all I was trying to point out is that it's just a belief system, there is no way to know. Just like reading a story and trying to guess what the ending is going to be. Sometimes the person in the story you thought was the good guy turns out to be the bad one in the end.

@Eudaimon,

careful not to anthropomorphise...

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;65458 wrote:

There are several historical, contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.

Can you cite any of them?

@Krumple,

Dave Allen;65352 wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Socrates was a clever and contrary person, but his story does not include claims of supernatural miracles, virgin births, multitudes of dead people walking, roman governers forgiving murderers of Romans in favour of executing disturbers of the peace, and other things that would be worthy of historical comment if true (as opposed to being mentioned only in the propaganda of those seeking to evangelise the new cult).

Philosophers tend not to be fictitious, whereas if any single religion is the one truth (or if they are all falsehoods) religious figures must be overwhelmingly fictitious (which I suppose is why you won't tackle whether or not Hanumen or Ravana are fictional).

Socrates was a very radical figure, with a message that could just as fairly be called propaganda for a cult as christianity. The fact he was forced to take poison, and that he saught the undoing of Greek religion probably puts all of his message in the propaganda box if you want to see it that way. But that is not how we analyse philosophical and theological teaching, but rather we take them on their own merits.

Dave Allen;65352 wrote:

In terms of Occam's Razor what is more likely - that the events of the gospels actually occured as written despite not being noticed by objective recorders of history in the area at the time, or that someone thought it might be a good idea to start a cult based on a deconstruction to Judaism to include this popular archetype that was proving a successful consolation to other local faiths?

Firstly occams razor is an excuse for intellectual lazyness rather than an actual worthwhile philosophical principle. All of existance is utterly unlikely, and utterly contradicts that bastard occam. Secondly all human endevours can be seen as cynical and utilitarian with the truth. But ultimatly I believe that powerful messages that spread by their sheer personal appeal tned to have at least a root of truth. Because logically truth is more powerful than lies.

xris;65354 wrote:

Why is it claims are made by Christians and when the going gets tough they shy away only to reemerge and make the same claims yet again.There may have been a local teacher called Jesus but he has been magnified and exaggerated totally out of his original life story.With the reaction they show we can see how the story became acceptable by the masses as fact rather than the real truth.Peters rock turned into Paul's deceit.

How can any of us know the unknowable? What makes me so certain that the Bible has historical veracity, and what makes you so certain it doesn't? Is it some purely aesthetic conclusion, or is it deeper- do I hear the truth of it in your soul, or do you hear its falseness? You can't make a claim to special knowledge- you can't know his message is false, or exaggerated. Is it not more accurate to say that you approach the matter with all your decisions made and conclusions reached?

Eudaimon;65374 wrote:

When we choose between two evils, it means that the evil we choose is better than another. Therefore if permitest to kill under some circumstances, it means only love is not the highest good (summum bonum) for thee. Thou valuest stability, human lives or whatever more than love. Otherwise thou wouldst never say that it is right to sacrifice love for the sake of worldly thing. This is not what Christ taught.

Take self defence- sometimes we must kill to save ourselves. But the guilt, the responsibility and the destruction of love stems from the aggressor, the one who created a situation where a sin must be committed. The sin is their's.

jeeprs;65458 wrote:

There are several historical, contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. And while I don't identify myself as Christian, don't read the Bible, and don't go to Church, I still feel very much alive to Christ as an inner reality. I refuse to accept that the whole of Christendom - and that is what our civilization was called until quite recently - was founded on a fable. I just won't ever accept that, say what you will. (Biblical fundamentalism is in any case not accepted by any mainstream denominations and is a literal perversion of the truth. The fruit of a uniquely American kind of stupidity.)

This is part of my point- how can a message enter the heart of a society so completly, if it is false?

Justin;65484 wrote:

For me, and digging into this and reading some books and skimming through various archives and historical documents, I've found that while many of us are following the paths in our lives that another man has laid out and their beliefs are based much upon their surroundings which effect how they view this world. If yourself were raised in China, you would more than likely not agree with what you've stated above in the quote.

A very unfortunate example, really. China is a country full of superstions and ritual, but mostly devoid of organised faith- partly because the have always has a state in the place of divine authority. But the Christian message is spread through China like wildfire and there are already millions of converts. Is Christianity a story? Of course! It is the ultimate narrative that permeates all our litreature, all our art and speaks to the narrative of our own lives. It is a story that has driven men to death and madness, to do acts of ultimate selflessness and perversions of the story have given rise to terrible evil. It is a message that has spread across the world, that thousands of fearless men have died to spread. How can a story of such power that it rewrites the lives of millions ever be called false? Only true stories have the potential to do such things, for as I have posited before, honesty is stronger than falsehood, truth greater than lies.

Justin;65484 wrote:

So, to bring this full circle, NO I do not believe there to be any proof of Jesus Christ and the Bible and this is based on personal investigation. This doesn't mean that I don't believe and/or understand much of the message that Jesus Christ brought but I think there's more to it and many of it has been confused over the years and there have been similar prophets with similar messages and lives, long before Jesus Christ. Either way, the gospels are not proof. We could go on to argue each detail it would not end until we're old an dead. LOL. So there's no arguement here, I don't buy the the bible in it's entirety but agree that there are some very good messages within it written by some enlightened people... but then again, you can find that in the Gita, Tora and many other teachings from all over the world.

No, obviously you can't. There has been plenty of rising from the dead, but there has never, ever been a monothesitic God who is trinitarian, and who is incarnate. Nor any God who dies for humanity. That message is unique.

Justin;65484 wrote:

If you choose to believe that, then that is a choice you make based on your understanding and your viewing through your eyes and quite possibly a lack of understanding of how it all came to be, as seen through the eyes if you were a historian or biblical scholar. Do you see where I'm trying to go with this? Depending on many things, one of us may perceive proofs where another one doesn't. OK, so we can't prove so we must have faith and believe and this will change the course of ones entire life.

So your own view is your own view. That seems rather self evident. I agree that the Bible is not Christs direct word. I agree that much of Christianity has been shaped by later thinkers. But all Christian thought derives from one source- the birth, death and ressurection of God.

Justin;65484 wrote:

I'm not sure of your point because there are the same with Muslims and other religions. Christianity and Islam just happen to be the two largest. One believes in the proofs one believes in an another proof. Each fight over their beliefs, compleletely forgetting the message of either. So this above is far from what I'd perceive to be proof of a truth.

Islam has plenty of historical veracity- they don't fight over proof but rather theology and politics.

Justin;65484 wrote:

That's because this all started Greek. Read this: Jesus of Nazareth - It's the wiki on Jesus and I skimmed through it and there is some good links and information there that may give you a broader understanding of the life of Jesus Christ. Is it all truth, NO but if you look deep enough the truth of it all will surface.

Of couse Christianity is in some sense greek. I know how massivly influential greek philosophy and thought is on Christianity, as I am actually aware of the origins of my faith. But this is because the central message and theology of Christianity fundamentally chimes with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle- which is a point in favour of its veracity in my view. Also Jerusalem was in the eastern half of the empire, in the greek speaking world, so it is little suprise that it would be heavily infuenced by that world. None of which suggests that the first point of origin is greek.

Justin;65484 wrote:

OK. Humanity is lasting too. The funny thing is Jesus didn't send a message that we need to understand scripture at all, if indeed it's all truth. It's true that it was written. It's true people believe. It's true the message and texts have been changed and altered. It's also true that it was a man that wrote it.

Well several men, but lets not quibble.

Justin;65484 wrote:

Understand scripture doesn't bring anyone closer to 'God'. There's real good scripture in India and China and all over the world that is outside the bible by enlightened individuals. Don't you see, WE are the living scripture. WE write it, we live it, we exist within it, we are.

Of couse scripture can bring us closer to God- writting is the main medium through which we preserve and transfer knowledge and ideas, and the idea and knowledge of Christianity is preserved in the Bible. So by reading it we can come closer to God, or at least the Christian God. We could have a big argument about who's faith is better, but we have enough on our hands at the moment wouldn't you say :rolleyes:

Justin;65484 wrote:

If you believe in the bible because it fits to your eye, then that's on you. It sounds to me that you've sort of picked and choosed what you'll believe inside that bible and that's fine as most of us do. To believe in it, you must believe in those who wrote it. Understand that these stories were first told of Christ and then written decades afterwards and many of the New Testemant works have been found to be written by the same individual. And then later, may have been altered by others before it first came into print. Do you believe that?

Inevitably tranlation is a form of alteration, which is one of the many good reasons the Bible wasn't translated from latin for hundreds of years. Incidentally Luther didn't give a crap about the people, he just wanted to manipulate scripture to his own ends, and his entire basis for his protestant belief in faith as the most primary precept was based on a misinterpretation. So sure, the message has been distorted, or improved (depending on your view of it) over time, but I would say that it is very well preserved considering. As for the writters, inevitably one must be able to read anything critically, but I do think its going a bit far to imply they somehow falsified Christ's teachings.

Justin;65484 wrote:

Your taste? So it's not about Christianity or Buddhism at all, it's about your taste. Exactly, and your tastes are altered by what?.... EVERYTHING you experience in your life. In order to understand it all you have to go even deeper into the rabbit hole.

OK well that was just an expression, and it was mild because I don't have a masive understanding of Buddhism, and don't have any huge attraction or problem with it. So as I don't have any faith in Buddhism, my opinion of it is as shallow as taste. But with Chrisianity, which I understand and place great faith in, or rathe the Christian God, my feeling run rather more deeply than taste. Sure you could describe everything as strong or weak taste, but then taste would mean somthing different, and we already have far better words for this. Try not to jump on unimportant mannerisms.

Krumple;65502 wrote:

I've even used something similar to this in a discussion before. Then I've used even a further step with it.

Imagine if god was the negative one, and Lucifer was the angel who saw god as being cruel and vindictive to humans and felt he wanted to break away from god's cruelty and try to save humans from god's wrath.

They absolutely hate it when you turn it around this way. Because they are convinced there is only one way it can be, but I just presented it another way. On top of that I used the bible to do it. Showing where god is very cruel to humanity and set up the argument where Lucifer would be the sort of soldier with a conscious against the evil general.

Hate to break it to you, but Milton got in before you, and I am not just Ok, but genuinly intrested by such reversals. So you can stop feeling superior now.

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

Can you cite any of them?

Well, no, but I could look them up. Joesphus Flavius comes to mind. But I am not inclined to pursue the argument. As said, I don't identify as a Christian, except now that Christianity is being mocked, ridiculed and rubbished, I think I would rather be with the Christians than the lions, so to speak.

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

Hate to break it to you, but Milton got in before you, and I am not just Ok, but genuinly intrested by such reversals. So you can stop feeling superior now.

Well I don't know who Milton is that you are referring to.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Socrates was a very radical figure, with a message that could just as fairly be called propaganda for a cult as christianity. The fact he was forced to take poison, and that he saught the undoing of Greek religion probably puts all of his message in the propaganda box if you want to see it that way.

You now seem to be attempting to position me as some sort of Socrates fancier, which I am not. I only spoke about him because you challenged me to demonstrate why I think he's a more likely figure in history than Jesus - a fact you seem to have forgotten. I quite agree that he was the centre of a cult (of personality at least), and even said so when I mentioned Plato.

The fact that he was executed changes absolutely nothing.

Quote:

Firstly occams razor is an excuse for intellectual lazyness rather than an actual worthwhile philosophical principle. All of existance is utterly unlikely, and utterly contradicts that bastard occam.

This is a misinterpretation. Occam's razor is a worthwhile philosophical principle depending on how it's employed. Occam's razor does not shy from the unlikely - to say it does so is a lie. The tool just states that two competing claims should be judged on likelihood, at least in part. It can be over-applied of course, but I think it's personally valid to wonder whether a cult is founded on human ingenuity rather than divine intervention.

What do you think is more likely?

Do note that most believers would agree with me in most (if not all) cases - aside from their own personally cherished beliefs, of course. Few believers are open-minded pantheists, after all - everyone subjects competing worldviews to some degree of dismissal.

Quote:

an excuse for intellectual lazyness ... that bastard occam ... you can stop feeling superior now ...

Ah, a perfect ambassador for turning the other cheek.

Quote:

Islam has plenty of historical veracity- they don't fight over proof but rather theology and politics.

Muhammad might have historical veracity, but Islam does not.

How much bloodshed has there been over an unprovable assertion that Muhammad flew a winged horse to the Dome of the Rock?

How much over the unproven assertion that Muhammad wished Ali to be his successor?

---------- Post added at 05:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 AM ----------

Krumple;65516 wrote:

Well I don't know who Milton is that you are referring to.

A blind poet who wrote Paradise Lost and had sympathy for the devil. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven", and so on...

---------- Post added at 05:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 AM ----------

jeeprs;65515 wrote:

Well, no, but I could look them up. Joesphus Flavius comes to mind.

Not a real contempory - born 4 years or so after the supposed events in Palestine.

As I said before, Josephus also never catalogued anything about Jesus beyond the fact that the Christians followed the message of a men who had been crucified.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Take self defence- sometimes we must kill to save ourselves. But the guilt, the responsibility and the destruction of love stems from the aggressor, the one who created a situation where a sin must be committed. The sin is their's.

... then it is better to sacrifice brotherly love to others so as to protect one's life? Then life is worth than love...
It would be nice to hear thy interpretations of Christ's words:

Matthew 5 wrote:

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 26 wrote:

51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I think there is nothing to add.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

How can a story of such power that it rewrites the lives of millions ever be called false? Only true stories have the potential to do such things, for as I have posited before, honesty is stronger than falsehood, truth greater than lies.

You don't say so! People are afflicted with greed with pursuit for money, with lust, with hatred, and this is spreading throughout the world much rapidly than Christianity... Truth is greater than lies?

@Lily,

jeeprs;65480 wrote:

Sorry, didn't mean to be insulting to Americans at all, I have many US friends, colleagues, teachers, and love many things American (but not the 'dinosaurs in Genesis' lot.)

Oh, no, no problem, friend. I just wanted to point out that, historically, Christian fundamentalism is just as much an English as American movement.

jeeprs;65480 wrote:

As for 'myth and fable' from modern eyes, these are simply 'untruths' but I believe (here is where i part company with most modern/secular types) that myth and fable REPRESENT great truths, truths that in some ways are truer than history. So I believe they should neither be dismissed, nor accepted, but interpreted, and there are very many shades of meaning to be discerned apart from the simple monochromes of Belief vs Atheism

You are right. The problem with what you call "modern eyes" is that many modern people have no idea how to read. They cannot wrap their heads around metaphor, analogy, and figurative language in general. It's a very serious cultural problem in the west, especially in places like the US.

jeeprs;65480 wrote:

And yes, I do certainly value and appreciate the mystical strain in Catholicism, I am a big fan of Merton, and also love Father Bede Griffiths (whom I was lucky enough to see lecture before he died.)

Wow, I imagine that was a great lecture. Smile

@Eudaimon,

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

You now seem to be attempting to position me as some sort of Socrates fancier, which I am not. I only spoke about him because you challenged me to demonstrate why I think he's a more likely figure in history than Jesus - a fact you seem to have forgotten. I quite agree that he was the centre of a cult (of personality at least), and even said so when I mentioned Plato.

Actually you said this:

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

Philosophers tend not to be fictitious, whereas if any single religion is the one truth (or if they are all falsehoods) religious figures must be overwhelmingly fictitious

Which was what I was responding to.

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

(which I suppose is why you won't tackle whether or not Hanumen or Ravana are fictional).

OK here goes nothing! They probably existed. Why not? A quick wikipedia glance has confirmed me in this, they sound brilliant.

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

This is a misinterpretation. Occam's razor is a worthwhile philosophical principle depending on how it's employed. Occam's razor does not shy from the unlikely - to say it does so is a lie. The tool just states that two competing claims should be judged on likelihood, at least in part.

My problem with Occams Razor is that it is used to make judgements before proper consideration. It makes unjustifiable assumptions about the universe.

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

It can be over-applied of course, but I think it's personally valid to wonder whether a cult is founded on human ingenuity rather than divine intervention.

What do you think is more likely?

A perfect example of the flaw in Occams Razor. That is a ridiculous way to pose the question. For a start are human ingenuity and divine intervention unconnected? Great figures who have shaped Christianity, such as Paul and Constantine received visions which inspire their human ingenuity. I never claimed the two were mutually exclusive.

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

Ah, a perfect ambassador for turning the other cheek.

You have deeply misinterpreted Christ's message if you think turning the other cheek means speaking softly and unboldly. Turning the other cheek is an act of definance against evil, indeed it is almolst mocking. You strike me and I simply smile and turn the other cheek to be stuck again. If you think that this is passive then you understand very little. As for the examples, two were me bashing occam, which I feel you need not take personally. The other was in response to a post that gave the impression the author thought presenting Satan as good was an idea of his alone, and that he was dealing a real blow to delicate Christian sensibilitys. I merely replied in kind.

Dave Allen;65517 wrote:

Muhammad might have historical veracity, but Islam does not.

How much bloodshed has there been over an unprovable assertion that Muhammad flew a winged horse to the Dome of the Rock?

How much over the unproven assertion that Muhammad wished Ali to be his successor?

God knows I am no great defender of Islam, I was merely pointing out that the real conflict was at a conceptual level, and not really ammenable to specific proofs.

Eudaimon;65550 wrote:

... then it is better to sacrifice brotherly love to others so as to protect one's life? Then life is worth than love...
It would be nice to hear thy interpretations of Christ's words:

It is not very loving to allow yourself to be killed, or indeed allow your loved ones to suffer needlessly.

Eudaimon;65550 wrote:

You don't say so! People are afflicted with greed with pursuit for money, with lust, with hatred, and this is spreading throughout the world much rapidly than Christianity... Truth is greater than lies?

I am a hopless idealist! I confess it freely! I believe good will triumph over evil, that truth is greater than falsehood, and that I will go to heaven when I die. I should be dosed up with depressants and put in a padded cell so I don't infect anyone! Seriously though if we do not believe that truth speaks more strongly to the hearts of men than falsehood philosophy is pointless.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;65597 wrote:

It is not very loving to allow yourself to be killed, or indeed allow your loved ones to suffer needlessly.

Why is it not loving to allow oneself to be killed? Christ did exactly that. Who are our loving ones? Christ taught that enemies are equal to friends, they also must be loved. The main thing is to abide in love oneself.

avatar6v7;65597 wrote:

I am a hopless idealist! I confess it freely! I believe good will triumph over evil, that truth is greater than falsehood, and that I will go to heaven when I die. I should be dosed up with depressants and put in a padded cell so I don't infect anyone! Seriously though if we do not believe that truth speaks more strongly to the hearts of men than falsehood philosophy is pointless.

Whether or not thou art idealist, thy statement that Christianity is true because it is spreading throught the world is false due to aforesaid reasons.

jeeprs;65480 wrote:

And yes, I do certainly value and appreciate the mystical strain in Catholicism, I am a big fan of Merton, and also love Father Bede Griffiths (whom I was lucky enough to see lecture before he died.)

Mysticism does not suit all. It requires some transcendental experiences which most part of us do not have. So, neither affirm it, nor reject I cannot, just because I cannot prove some one he does not have his experiences.
The other thing is to investigate why and how people turn to it. Is it not because they are so dissatisfied with their lives that they need new drug -- new transcendental experiences? There are very few who may claim they had visions their life long, others accquired them because of fear before every day life. However, what do they change? Maybe in future we'll have a great deal of this drugs even without years meditations and prayers. Just eat a tablet (without side effects now), and thou wilt get into fourth dimension, meet God, Trinity, Buddha, expereince bliss... But is this keif what we need?

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:

Why is it not loving to allow oneself to be killed? Christ did exactly that. Who are our loving ones? Christ taught that enemies are equal to friends, they also must be loved. The main thing is to abide in love oneself.

Christ taught us not to kill people, and I don't intend to die because someone else decided to ignore him.

Eudaimon;65641 wrote:

Whether or not thou art idealist, thy statement that Christianity is true because it is spreading throught the world is false due to aforesaid reasons.

You don't have the moral authority to mock. And more importantly you suck at it.

@Eudaimon,

People are at different stages of development. What is called 'mysticism' may comprise experiences which from the viewpoint of the person having it, are as plain as daylight, but to someone else seems incomprehensible, hence the term 'mystical' (which is a word I have learned not to like much.) I often detect an undercurrent of 'patient exasperation' in the teachings of mystics owing to the fact that something which is plain and obvious to them seems so difficult and obscure to their audience.

But it is true that not everyone needs the same experiences or thinks the same way, and vive la difference!

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

People are at different stages of development.

I use to think stuff like that too but what is the purpose for this development? Everyone is practicing a religion but when is the performance?

I understand that not everyone thinks a like or has the ability to reason through stuff. I understand that some people prefer emotional responses over logical ones. I understand that some people value family over neighbors. I understand that we aren't always given the honest information to make a solid decision. It is clear that there is lying on both sides to every issue, it's just a matter of how much and can you fend for yourself to notice it?

@Eudaimon,

jeeprs wrote:

There are several historical, contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.

Just to point out a clarification here. The word 'accounts' here is most likely being used without care (especially as it is used in the clause with '. . . the life of Jesus Christ.' In fact, there are no 'accounts' other than those which we have in the several bilibical textual documents--both canonical and non-canonical.

@KaseiJin,

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Is Christianity a story? Of course! It is the ultimate narrative that permeates all our litreature, all our art and speaks to the narrative of our own lives. It is a story that has driven men to death and madness, to do acts of ultimate selflessness and perversions of the story have given rise to terrible evil. It is a message that has spread across the world, that thousands of fearless men have died to spread. How can a story of such power that it rewrites the lives of millions ever be called false? Only true stories have the potential to do such things, for as I have posited before, honesty is stronger than falsehood, truth greater than lies.

Just because a story has lived thousands and thousands of years, doesn't mean that it's true. All it means is that there are people who believe it and will die in service of making sure others believe it as well. This story actually preceded Jesus Christ.

However, whether true or not, the message of Jesus Christ does not fit into today's flavor of Christianity. Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ are so far spread apart today that it's turned into more of a religious cult than it is a living example of Christ's teachings. I'm not talking about all Christians either, I'm talking about the majority in today's Christian Church.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

No, obviously you can't. There has been plenty of rising from the dead, but there has never, ever been a monothesitic God who is trinitarian, and who is incarnate. Nor any God who dies for humanity. That message is unique.

God of old was the sun. Gradually God became something different throughout the ages. Because the bible says, that doesn't make it actually true. Again, I reiterate that the stories surrounding Jesus Christ were orally transmitted decades after the life of Jesus was actually lived, if in fact it was lived. There are no scriptures or accounts of Jesus Christ that were actually written during the witness of the said life of Christ. Anyone can believe what they choose, that doesn't mean it's true.

What's true and what is known is that of balance and love. We know this through nature and science and it's expressed various places throughout the bible. Is the life of Jesus Christ really true?... Historians would beg to differ.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

So your own view is your own view. That seems rather self evident. I agree that the Bible is not Christs direct word. I agree that much of Christianity has been shaped by later thinkers. But all Christian thought derives from one source- the birth, death and ressurection of God.

OK, I see where you're going. Christian thought actually derives from Paul in conjunction with Emperor Constantine and the formation of a 'New Religion' based in part upon political agendas. This was a period when many writings regarding reincarnation were destroyed as they destroyed and burnt many of the writings that were not approved to be put into the bible. They destroyed that which didn't fit into Constantin's 'New Religion'.

So if we buy the story of Jesus, which there is no proof and no writings and no records of the crucifixion, then of course we can buy into the story that Jesus was in fact God. However the very message behind Jesus Christ was that we are all a part of one God and that God is a light within all of mankind. Technically speaking, if we were all made in the image of God then we to are God.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Islam has plenty of historical veracity- they don't fight over proof but rather theology and politics.

Islam fights because Christianity fights. It takes two to tangle and Christianity is equally responsible if not more responsible in this context. Let's not forget that the message of Christ was to love the unlovely, not attack and destroy Islam. It's the Christian who preaches love in one hand and then goes out and slaughters unbelievers in the other. This is hypocrisy no matter how you choose to slice it. Hypocrisy hence becomes a problem within this world because Christianity is supposed to be one thing yet it does another.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Of couse Christianity is in some sense greek. I know how massivly influential greek philosophy and thought is on Christianity, as I am actually aware of the origins of my faith. But this is because the central message and theology of Christianity fundamentally chimes with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle- which is a point in favour of its veracity in my view. Also Jerusalem was in the eastern half of the empire, in the greek speaking world, so it is little suprise that it would be heavily infuenced by that world. None of which suggests that the first point of origin is greek.

Origins of your faith? Faith doesn't have origins and it cannot possibly have origins because it's faith not historical proof. To believe in what you propose, you must have faith because history and science says there's no possible way. So your faith is not in Christ and not in God but in the men who prepared and organized these very teachings you have faith in. We say, no, my faith is in God or Jesus Christ but the fact is, your faith is in the scriptures you read and influences you've had on your life, not God.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Of couse scripture can bring us closer to God- writting is the main medium through which we preserve and transfer knowledge and ideas, and the idea and knowledge of Christianity is preserved in the Bible. So by reading it we can come closer to God, or at least the Christian God. We could have a big argument about who's faith is better, but we have enough on our hands at the moment wouldn't you say :rolleyes:

No it cannot. If in fact these scriptures and the life of Christ is truth at all, Jesus did not tell the masses to educate themselves with scripture. Jesus did not tell them to write a new religion and call it Christianity. Jesus actually described how to become closer to God and his description didn't include the worldly knowledge of man.

Furthermore, Christianity isn't preserved in the Bible, it was authored by the bible. Why is the Christian God different from the other Gods? None of which there has ever been any realistic proof of either way. There seem to be many Gods out there and according to the supposed message of Christ there is only ONE God and it's not a Christian God.

Yes, I don't want to argue about who's faith is better because frankly I'm more interested in knowing rather than having faith in a fairy tale. Knowing is not faith at all.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

Inevitably tranlation is a form of alteration, which is one of the many good reasons the Bible wasn't translated from latin for hundreds of years. Incidentally Luther didn't give a crap about the people, he just wanted to manipulate scripture to his own ends, and his entire basis for his protestant belief in faith as the most primary precept was based on a misinterpretation. So sure, the message has been distorted, or improved (depending on your view of it) over time, but I would say that it is very well preserved considering. As for the writters, inevitably one must be able to read anything critically, but I do think its going a bit far to imply they somehow falsified Christ's teachings.

We can all read the bible and interpret it differently. We can all go to a Christian church and receive a different message based upon our own desires of the flesh. We can say, the "Christian God" yet it seems that there are several Christian Gods depending on which Christian you talk to. Our idea of God is autonomous and today it must fit the desires of the flesh rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ, which as you've mentioned above has been interpreted and changed or improved throughout the ages.

It's all up for interpretation and one can see a glass half empty or half full but it's the same glass. God is a deity created because Man needed something beyond himself to carry the burden of man.

avatar6v7;65513 wrote:

OK well that was just an expression, and it was mild because I don't have a masive understanding of Buddhism, and don't have any huge attraction or problem with it. So as I don't have any faith in Buddhism, my opinion of it is as shallow as taste. But with Chrisianity, which I understand and place great faith in, or rathe the Christian God, my feeling run rather more deeply than taste. Sure you could describe everything as strong or weak taste, but then taste would mean somthing different, and we already have far better words for this. Try not to jump on unimportant mannerisms.

OK, so your expression saying that you don't have a massive understanding of Buddhism and any faith in Buddhism. To be honest, I don't either but I'm not a man who practices having faith because had you or I been raised in China we'd more than likely be arguing right now that Buddhism and it's God is the god we have faith in.

These aren't unimportant mannerisms. Your argument for Christianity is based not on proof, not on the message of Christ but solely upon your perception of what you've read and the experiences you've had. Pluck you out and move you to India as a child and be raised there, you'd have yet a totally different perspective than you do now because of what your parents would teach or pass on and by the external influences of your life.

So now, we're here and what makes the biggest difference in faiths is scientifically, the geographical location of each of us. Our Gods have been divided based upon our location and culture among other things. So if we are to believe in something and have faith, we must have faith that we were born and raised in the right geographical location... Or we find a tradition or religion that best fits our fleshly desires and resonates with us the most. Do you see what I mean here?

There really is no argument about it at all and any faithful Christian that I've ever known turns a blind eye to historical proof and is guided solely by faith that their perception of God and the world is in fact truth. The question of the day is, is it really truth?

Now, one religion will eventually grow to be the largest and most influential and that's a given. You cannot have hundreds of Gods and hundreds of traditions without one of them being the head of such a beast. Christianity seems to fit more with worldly desires of the flesh than other religions and it is becoming the head of the very beast talked about in the scriptures. Just because it's the largest religion doesn't mean it's the right one, it just means that it has carried more influence and no matter what, there will always be a one that surpasses the others.

Definitely an interesting thread and I'm enjoying the discussion. We each have our opinions and that's OK and acceptable. Faith is tough because it's always under scrutiny and when it all boils down to it, you will know them by their fruit and if in fact Christianity is the largest and most influential religion of our time, the fruit seems to be dying on the vine. Just take a look at the world and the wars and the hypocrisy and for being the largest world-wide religion, there seems to be something wrong with the direction of influence otherwise the world wouldn't be in the condition it is and we wouldn't have Christians and Muslims killing each other because Christians would be turning the other cheek and loving those who are unlovely... but that's not what's happening is it.

Peace!

@Eudaimon,

If I may ask for careful consideration here, avatar6v7. There are a couple of assertions you have made which are most clearly very hard to come by at all, and one (at least, for now) which is completely incorrect in nature.

The documents which represent the exemplars, the closest we can get to the autographs, do not admit of YHWH as having been born, much less as having died and raised again by himself. Trinitarian doctrine was not first century Christian doctrine at all--not by a longshot, really. (although we can get a duality of sorts with divinity; but YHWH is always YHWH, and there had not been any change there)

@Eudaimon,

Discussion of wheter or not Christ existed in reality seems absolutely idle for me. My opinion (mere an opinion) is that there really was a teacher called Jeshua and who taught non-resistance and chastity because these are only common things that may be found in the gospels. Anything more about him we cannot know, this includes even his world view, his metaphysics: some parts of the gospels tell us: the Kingdom of God is within us, which has much common with greek (paticulary stoic) philosophy; others try to bully us that the Son of Man shall separate the righteous from the wicked as goats from sheeps, which is exactly what had been taught bey Jewish sacred books and prophets.
The other idle question is whether or not Jesus performed miracles. Let us remeber Exodus when Pharaoh's magicians did the same god and who han guarantee us that Jesus was not the devil seducing men. Just imagine now from the sky a solemn voice is saying: "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased", what does it prove? Nothing except that we should somewhat rectify our conception of nature. Thus, miracles are not proofs and wheter one believes it does not proves Christianity. I think that if Christianity is true, it must make us happy (surely, belief in miracles cannot do that). So we have to consider what was the teaching of Christ, his ethics.
Nowadays only for those who call themselves Christians there may be doubts in Christian ethics and I shall explain why. If one calls himself Christian and does not want to do what his Saviour said to do: turn the other cheek, love (notice, love, not kill!) his foes, be chaste, when he encounters with what Christ really said he has a dilemma: either to stop being Christian, or deny and pervert it by some ruses his words (which was exactly the thing made by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and the other churches). I can recall many, many such intentional pereversions: for example, insertion of the words "without a cause" when Christ was speaking on anger (Matthew 5:22). Later, in polemic with Leo Tolstoy, they tried to make a difference between enemies, jusrifying imprisonment, punishments with words that Christ was speaking about one's personal foes, not about political system (so we should love them, yet have permission to execute!)... Thus, for those not churched it is much easier to get real understanding of Jesus' words: just because they don't have to follow them.
I think if we really want to give an assessment to Christianity we should look from outside.
And I agree, when we call ourselves Christians, Buddhists, Hindoos, it means only that we were raised such and such culture. That explains why Christians do not recognise what Christ really said.

@KaseiJin,

Did the man Jesus live? did he teach a new way of love and mercy? Does it matter if he lived or is it case of if his message changed humanity for the better?
Through the mists of time i can see the message but i also see the deceit woven around the truth.From humble beginings it turned from a message of love into a tool of oppression, of control.Paul aware of the common mans desire for change, for justice saw the advantage of conspiring to adopt this new found faith, claiming gods divine contact and by so doing made it his own.There is more of Paul's teachings in the new testament than christs, does that give us a clue to the real church of Christ? The catholics divine interest.From Paul who enforced his hell and damnation on us to the modern popes we have a church that has no compassion and does not in any way compare to the man Jesus.
Like all popular uprisings against oppression and injustice men of power manipulate it to their advantage ,giving us today a power to oppress and control millions of devoted fools.It happens with every popular uprising and the common mans desire is turned into deceit deception and betrayal.

@Eudaimon,

This book ('When Jesus Became God') looks highly relevant to the discussion (I haven't read it but is on the list.)

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know