# Judeo-Christian wackiness



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

From the National Prayer Day thread:



> This is not a thread about the "pagan" or "shamenistic" influences of Christianity, whether or not Shaolinwolf said that the "Jews" control the world or not, whether or not the Jewish "high priests" were controlled by the Roman government, whether or not Mel Gibson is the true messiah or not, or whether or not Christianity is a "poppycock" grand conspiricy to control the world.
> 
> If you want to talk about any of those things, start another thread.



This is that thread. Have fun.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> It [the Bible] was infallible then they couldn't find anything fallible. ok?



Yes, but "they" have.

It is almost universally agreed by scholars that a "world flood" never occured, even among conservative circles. The best we can see is that perhaps a local flood around the Levant happened at some point (but, even then, the evidence is a little iffy). It _is_ generally agreed, however, that the Noah story borrows heavily from the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh (of Babylonian fame) --- even contemporary Jewish scholars are coming to this conclusion.

I don't really need to go into the "the world is 6,000 years old" angle or the creationism vs evolutionism debate here, to point out that many of the claims in the Bible -- as interpreted _literally_ --- are indeed in question of "fallibility".

The worst, of course, comes from the New Testament (in this particular case, with Mark --- supposedly the 'earliest' of the Synoptics):

"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce." (I. Wilson, "Jesus: The Evidence")

There is also, of course, Jesus' birth during the census at Quirinus ---- which was supposed to have taken place under Herod's rule. Problem is, there was no census under Herod at this time, nor did Herod ever order a "slaughter of infants" as the NT records (although such an event is quite common in Pagan mythology).

By no means is any of this represenatitive of "infallibility".


----------



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

Ok so lets restart the fun.  I'm a christian of no particular denomination raised between methodist and presbeterian with other denomonations thown in.   Basically I was raised Christian.
I want to see the proof the Jews killed Christ.  

As to predictions well tell me some evnt and I can show how the word cheese forshadowed its coming.  If I really feel like trying.

As to heritic saying evidence wins every time over faith.  Nope I'm sure this can be disproven.  Faith sometimes can be disprovven by evidnce but evidence also requires an interpretation.  If I want to disprove something and I have shaky evidence I can sort of do it.  I can also prove it.  I can also question the integrity of evidence.  
OJ wasn't convicted.  There was plenty of eveidence abou his guilt.  That wasn't faith but it proves hw little eviedence can do at times.

As to using primary sources to prove what Shaolin Wolf said well I disagree with what he said but I also think proving it would be almost impossible if it were true.
Sorry about any toes I may have stepped on.  I'm not sure how much sense any of that made.


----------



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

Well we can also debate the whole should the bible be taken ltterally always.  Well lets ask this.  I'm sure a fair number of Christians would say that God is Omnipotent.  So why take a six days to make the world and why rest on the next one.
With Omnipotence the question about predestination is raised though.
Of course then we can go into what is the point of anthing?   Why are we alive?  Why is there anything rather than nothing?  It can only go down hill from here.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> I want to see the proof the Jews killed Christ.



I second that.



> As to predictions well tell me some evnt and I can show how the word cheese forshadowed its coming. If I really feel like trying.



Indeed. Certain individuals have a tendency to "read into" things whatever they wish, usually for the explicit purpose of furthering an agenda. All of these "prophetic" claims concerning the Revelation of John are not made in an attempt to help us decipher the future in any way, or to help alleviate world problems through divination. Rather, they are performed with the express purpose of "proving" the power of God and the Bible. Its agenda-driven.

And, once again, none of these claims about "Revelation predicted 9/11 would happen!!" were never made until, well, 9/11 had _already_ happened. Hindsight is 20/20.



> As to heritic saying evidence wins every time over faith. Nope I'm sure this can be disproven. Faith sometimes can be disprovven by evidnce but evidence also requires an interpretation. If I want to disprove something and I have shaky evidence I can sort of do it. I can also prove it. I can also question the integrity of evidence.



I will admit that the quotation of mine that you are referring to was phrased rather badly.

What I meant to say was that if we are in possession of concrete, _solid_ counterevidence to claims made out of faith --- then the rational mind must side with the evidence. By no means does this mean all _claims_ for evidence are equally valid, or that there is not an interpretive element to be factored in. However, when we do truly possess strong evidence in juxtaposition to faith-driven beliefs, then the only rational conclusion is to detach from such beliefs (or, at the very least, to try and reinterpret them).



> OJ wasn't convicted. There was plenty of eveidence abou his guilt. That wasn't faith but it proves hw little eviedence can do at times.



Well, assuming there actually _was_ telling evidence (I didn't follow the case that closely so I don't really know), then I'd say that conclusion had more to do with people's perceptions (or perhaps even agendas) than anything else.



> As to using primary sources to prove what Shaolin Wolf said well I disagree with what he said but I also think proving it would be almost impossible if it were true.



Well, if it can't be proven, one shouldn't be presenting it as "plain fact".

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

> Well, if it can't be proven, one shouldn't be presenting it as "plain fact".



I agree with you there. But, would you also agree with me that in ancient history, there are very few "plain facts," and most of what we think we know has to be taken with some degree of faith? :idunno:


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> Well we can also debate the whole should the bible be taken ltterally always.



Indeed. But, at that point, new problems arise: exactly _which_ parts of the Bible should be read as history, and _which_ parts should be read symbolically?? How do you tell the difference?? What is the criteria??

After all, if the "created in six days" is a metaphor or a symbol of some sort, could it not be argued that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are metaphors?? Is God a metaphor?? Heaven and Hell?? What is literal and what is symbolical??

These are all important questions to ask.



> With Omnipotence the question about predestination is raised though.



Yep, philosophers been debating that one for millenia. Of course, my personal opinion is that the entire problem of fate vs free will is ultimately (and only) solved in Nonduality.



> Of course then we can go into what is the point of anthing? Why are we alive? Why is there anything rather than nothing? It can only go down hill from here.



No, I don't think so. Those are all very important questions to ask oneself.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> But, would you also agree with me that in ancient history, there are very few "plain facts," and most of what we think we know has to be taken with some degree of faith?



Errr.... sorta.

Its true that, the farther back in history we go, the more difficult it is to confirm things (there are exceptions to this trend, of course). It is also true that, even with solid "evidence", there still remains a strong interpretive and hermeneutic component to be taken into account --- as the great structuralists remind us. Modern studies concerning "eyewitness accounts" are testament to this.

However, this does not necessarily mean its "all a matter of opinion" or "all a matter of faith" as many subjectivists claim. There is evidence, but there is also interpretation. The two go hand-in-hand: objectivity cannot exsist without subjectivity. 

I would say, ultimately, it depends on the individual circumstance.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Indeed. But, at that point, new problems arise: exactly _which_ parts of the Bible should be read as history, and _which_ parts should be read symbolically?? How do you tell the difference?? What is the criteria??
> 
> After all, if the "created in six days" is a metaphor or a symbol of some sort, could it not be argued that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are metaphors?? Is God a metaphor?? Heaven and Hell?? What is literal and what is symbolical??
> 
> ...



I agree, all important questions. I feel that they can be answered by trying to look at the intentions of the authors of the texts. Some scripture was intended to be a "mythology," meaning true in the figurative rather then literal sense, and ment to tell a lesson. Some may have been communications to illustrate issues of faith, and may have never intended to be compiled in a "book" like the bible, but are there for our observation all the same. Some may have been written simply to praise God, like psalms. Some may have been intended as a historical account.

Figuring out which was which and the intent of each scripture is certianly easier said then done, and is the subject of arguement in all christian sects.

I think that we have to make as educated of a guess as we can, based on the evidence that we do have. And, that is the best that we can do.

One thing that I do believe is I believe that a lot of mistakes are made by christians who take every word of the bible literally. I can argue til' sunset that not every scripture was ment to be taken in a literal manner.!


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Errr.... sorta.
> 
> Its true that, the farther back in history we go, the more difficult it is to confirm things (there are exceptions to this trend, of course). It is also true that, even with solid "evidence", there still remains a strong interpretive and hermeneutic component to be taken into account --- as the great structuralists remind us. Modern studies concerning "eyewitness accounts" are testament to this.
> 
> ...



I agree with you so far.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> I agree, all important questions. I feel that they can be answered by trying to look at the intentions of the authors of the texts. Some scripture was intended to be a "mythology," meaning true in the figurative rather then literal sense, and ment to tell a lesson. Some may have been communications to illustrate issues of faith, and may have never intended to be compiled in a "book" like the bible, but are there for our observation all the same. Some may have been written simply to praise God, like psalms. Some may have been intended as a historical account.



This is a very tricky area, in my opinion.

It can be exceedingly difficult to decipher the intentions of the authors, and most attempts are often colored by the intentions of the interpreter himself!! As Freke and Gandy put it, fire-and-brimstone types tend to see fire-and-brimstone Jesuses, Buddhists tend to see Buddhist Jesuses, liberal protestors tend to see liberal protesting Jesuses, and so on. With a tradition so culturally "loaded" as the Biblical one, it can be almost impossible to divorce these various agendas from actual scientific process.

I, for example, believe that 'Jesus Christ' himself was a symbolic visionary character --- intended to symbolize the Christian initiate himself throughout various stages of development. I believe the Crucifixion and Resurrection were symbols pointing something more akin to Gnosis, Jnana, or Nirvana rather than historical events. Obviously, this is not a very common or popular interpretation.



> Figuring out which was which and the intent of each scripture is certianly easier said then done, and is the subject of arguement in all christian sects.
> 
> I think that we have to make as educated of a guess as we can, based on the evidence that we do have. And, that is the best that we can do.
> 
> One thing that I do believe is I believe that a lot of mistakes are made by christians who take every word of the bible literally. I can argue til' sunset that not every scripture was ment to be taken in a literal manner.!



Agreed.



> I agree with you so far.



Yay!  :asian:


----------



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is a very tricky area, in my opinion.
> 
> It can be exceedingly difficult to decipher the intentions of the authors, and most attempts are often colored by the intentions of the interpreter himself!! As Freke and Gandy put it, fire-and-brimstone types tend to see fire-and-brimstone Jesuses, Buddhists tend to see Buddhist Jesuses, liberal protestors tend to see liberal protesting Jesuses, and so on. With a tradition so culturally "loaded" as the Biblical one, it can be almost impossible to divorce these various agendas from actual scientific process.


I'd never heard that before very intresting and true.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Indeed. But, at that point, new problems arise: exactly which parts of the Bible should be read as history, and which parts should be read symbolically?? How do you tell the difference?? What is the criteria??
> 
> After all, if the "created in six days" is a metaphor or a symbol of some sort, could it not be argued that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are metaphors?? Is God a metaphor?? Heaven and Hell?? What is literal and what is symbolical??
> 
> These are all important questions to ask.


I have never questioned the Cruxifixion and resserection before in the manner you have raised.  I guess this is one of those fuzzy things but something there probably is litteral.  

Now here is my question.  We are intepriting an interpetation right?  I mean God didn't write the bible then call himself Matthew Mark Luke and John right?  He (He not so much in the male sense but as is done in the bible) wrote through them is the understanding of it right?  There are plenty f other undderstandings and I dunno which one is right but I wish to clarify this one for myself. 
Hope that made some sense.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> I have never questioned the Cruxifixion and resserection before in the manner you have raised. I guess this is one of those fuzzy things but something there probably is litteral.



My personal opinion is that they did not occur historically, nor did Jesus exist historically. That is, though, just my take on the subject.



> Now here is my question. We are intepriting an interpetation right?



Hrmmmmm..... not necessarily. It is questionable whether the Synoptics were interpretations of actual historical events, or whether they were simply "works of poetry", so to speak.

In any event, I suppose you could construe both as interpretations in the sense of either: 
1) Individual interpretations of historical events, or
2) Individual intepretations of spiritual or symbolic 'events'.



> I mean God didn't write the bible then call himself Matthew Mark Luke and John right? He (He not so much in the male sense but as is done in the bible) wrote through them is the understanding of it right?



That's the claim.

Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale (May 17, 2004)

A question, prompted by the other thread, but I don't want to take the other thread off topic.

Isn't Jewish lineage traced through the MOTHER??  In that case, why would it matter who Jesus' father was, whether it was Joseph, God, or someone else?

Unless things were done differently back then?  I don't know.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

I realize that I incorrectly referred to Jesus' human father as 'Joshua' before. My apologies for the mistake.



> Isn't Jewish lineage traced through the MOTHER?? In that case, why would it matter who Jesus' father was, whether it was Joseph, God, or someone else?



Because, in Matthew and Luke, Jesus' entire claim to fame as far as the "blood of Daniel" is concerned is his patrilineal descent through Joseph. They both have very lengthy (and very different) lineages tracking this.

Then again, the fact that the Gospel authors might have missed on the matriarchal lineage in Judaism isn't any big surprise. As I demonstrated above, whoever wrote this stuff was not from Israel/Palestine and was not familiar with Jewish laws, customs, or language.

*shrugs*


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

Heretic, your approach, which is sort of Gnosis, is pretty unique in this day and age. 

Mine is a little less unique, in I agree with the Catholic explaination of Jesus and the Bible. I guess where I differ is I often disagree with my church on political and behavioral issues, however, the written doctrines and research are what makes the most sense to me. I also take a more "liberal" and "tribal" approach to God as a whole.

In regards to the Gospels, the consensus in the Catholic church is that the Gospels do not go back to the first Century of the Christian Era. The words that were used to head these Gospels did not mean that they were written by "Matt" or "Mark" But rather were "drawn up according to Matt" or whoever. We don't know if these were written by individuals, or by groups following the teachings of an individual. Some believe that there were multiple authors to the Gospels. We also don't know if they were written down after an oral tradition, or if they were interpretations of other writings that we have yet to find in a complete form (although some think that we have found some evidence to "John" from 40 A.D., even though this isn't certain).

We also recognize that there are about 20 total "gospels," the 4 canonical, and 16 others. We actually don't know the precise manner in which these 4 became canonical above the others; we only know that the early church prescribed to these as the most authoritiative. This would make sense, as the 4 seem to fit more with the "Christian" interpretation over the Jewish or Gnostic, or "Heretical" (no pun intended) interpretations. We believe that the rest of the Gospels are a good read, even if they don't always fully support our view of who Jesus was.

I guess the big difference between the Catholic and Orthodox interpretation is that we believe that the "Bible" is a compelation of stories written by men inspired by God, where as most other Christian's sort of view the Bible as "the word of God" written by men. There is a big difference. God, and my consiousness and relationship with God, is my over-riding authority over everything. The Bible, the Church, the Priest, the research, etc., are all there to help me understand and deepen my relationship. Other Christians tend to view the Bible as aq "book" rather then a compilation of writings, and as an ultimate authority. I hope I am not misrepresenting my faith by saying this, but this is my take on the differences.

Anyways that's just the Catholic (or my take on the Catholic) interpretation of the Gospels, scripture, and how it all fits.


----------



## Cruentus (May 17, 2004)

> Then again, the fact that the Gospel authors might have missed on the matriarchal lineage in Judaism isn't any big surprise. As I demonstrated above, whoever wrote this stuff was not from Israel/Palestine and was not familiar with Jewish laws, customs, or language.



That is possible. However, as I understood it, Mary's parents were Joachim (Heli) and Anna. Joachim was a decendent of Davids as well, thus "fullfilling the scriptures" any way you look at it, if you buy this explaination anyways.


----------



## heretic888 (May 17, 2004)

> Heretic, your approach, which is sort of Gnosis, is pretty unique in this day and age.



Thus my username. 



> Mine is a little less unique, in I agree with the Catholic explaination of Jesus and the Bible. I guess where I differ is I often disagree with my church on political and behavioral issues, however, the written doctrines and research are what makes the most sense to me. I also take a more "liberal" and "tribal" approach to God as a whole.



Heh. You usually don't see "liberal" and "tribal" go hand-in-hand.  :uhyeah: 



> In regards to the Gospels, the consensus in the Catholic church is that the Gospels do not go back to the first Century of the Christian Era. The words that were used to head these Gospels did not mean that they were written by "Matt" or "Mark" But rather were "drawn up according to Matt" or whoever.



I was personally under the impression that the names chosen to signify authorship of the Gospels was determined fairly arbitrarily.



> We also don't know if they were written down after an oral tradition, or if they were interpretations of other writings that we have yet to find in a complete form (although some think that we have found some evidence to "John" from 40 A.D., even though this isn't certain).



I personally doubt this. What we _have_ found is a fragment that has verses in common with our John. Of course, when you take into account that the Synoptics share some one-third of their verses in common, this really isn't _that_ big of a find --- and, in the end, may do more to hurt the historical antecedence of John, rather then help.



> We also recognize that there are about 20 total "gospels," the 4 canonical, and 16 others.



Oh, I'd say there's a lot more than that --- there were innumerable Christian texts, many of which have not survived.



> We actually don't know the precise manner in which these 4 became canonical above the others; we only know that the early church prescribed to these as the most authoritiative.



Errr... not really.

The Synoptics were chosen as 'canonical' with the Council of Nicea in 330 CE. Before that time, there is absolutely no evidence that 'the early church' prescribed to those as being the most authoritative --- in fact, Gnostic teachings by individuals such as Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus were _exponentially_ more popular and widespread than the so-called 'canonical' texts. The 'canonical' texts didn't seem to have much precedence outside of Rome --- which, I suspect, is the reason they were ultimately chosen.



> This would make sense, as the 4 seem to fit more with the "Christian" interpretation over the Jewish or Gnostic, or "Heretical" (no pun intended) interpretations.



This, of course, begs the question as to just how close _our_ Synoptics are to the ones canonized in 330 CE. It is already a well-known fact that Mark (the only Gospel containing the Resurrection scene) did not contain the Ressurection scene in its earliest extant forms. These were added in later. Who knows how many elements in our current Synoptics were later additions, or how much of the original were excised in those early days?? 

(The actual post-Crucifixion teachings of Mark's Jesus are found in the Secret Gospel of Mark, a Gnostic text. The original Mark, as far as we can tell, ends with the disciples witnessing the empty tomb in awe. There is clearly some precedence for the Secret Gospel here.)



> I guess the big difference between the Catholic and Orthodox interpretation is that we believe that the "Bible" is a compelation of stories written by men inspired by God, where as most other Christian's sort of view the Bible as "the word of God" written by men. There is a big difference.



Indeed.



> That is possible. However, as I understood it, Mary's parents were Joachim (Heli) and Anna. Joachim was a decendent of Davids as well, thus "fullfilling the scriptures" any way you look at it, if you buy this explaination anyways.



Which actually brings up one of the not-so-well-known incidents in the New Testament tale --- that Mary and Joseph are cross-cousins. Ewww, incest... sorta.

In any event, the above explanation aside, the Bible clearly points out the long (and contradictory) patrilineal lines at the beginning of Matthew and Luke as being "proof" of Jesus' David-hood. If this is so, however, than the Christian believer is left in a bit of a pickle in regards to the whole Virgin Birth.

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 17, 2004)

Just to bring up a point, since I don't want to ruin *your one sided thread*. Cross cousins does not mean incest. It's ok to have 5th and 6th cousins marry. Just not 1st-4th.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> A question, prompted by the other thread, but I don't want to take the other thread off topic.
> 
> Isn't Jewish lineage traced through the MOTHER??  In that case, why would it matter who Jesus' father was, whether it was Joseph, God, or someone else?
> 
> Unless things were done differently back then?  I don't know.



Your Hallachic (Legal status) as a Jew is through the mother. Lineage (or tribal affiliation) is through the father.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> That is possible. However, as I understood it, Mary's parents were Joachim (Heli) and Anna. Joachim was a decendent of Davids as well, thus "fullfilling the scriptures" any way you look at it, if you buy this explaination anyways.



Mary's lineage is irrelevant. Lineage is through the father.

Which brings the conumdrum:

1) Jesus is he son of G-d, therefore not of the line of David
2) Jesus is of the line of David through Joseph, therefore not the son of G-d


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 17, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Your Hallachic (Legal status) as a Jew is through the mother. Lineage (or tribal affiliation) is through the father.



By Legal status do you mean the heritage or religion?

Or something else?


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> By Legal status do you mean the heritage or religion?
> 
> Or something else?




It's complicated.

Hallacha is the term used for the body of Jewish law).

So you are considered a Jew according to Hallacha if your mother is Jewish, or you convert. 

You must be Jewish to practice Judaism. You can be Jewish and NOT practice Judaism.

So
1) if both your parents are Jewish, your Hallachic status as a Jew comes from your mother, and your tribal affiliation comes from your father.

2) If only your mother is Jewish, or you converted, you are a Hallachic Jew, but have not tribal affiliation.

3) If only your father is Jewish, and you did not convert, you are NOT Jewish.


and in the case of 1 and 2, the religion you practice may or may not be Judaism.

That's the simple, easy part of Jewish law.

Now do you still wonder why so many of us are lawyers??


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

*Reminder*

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management


----------



## loki09789 (May 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The Synoptics were chosen as 'canonical' with the Council of Nicea in 330 CE. Before that time, there is absolutely no evidence that 'the early church' prescribed to those as being the most authoritative --- in fact, Gnostic teachings by individuals such as Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus were _exponentially_ more popular and widespread than the so-called 'canonical' texts. The 'canonical' texts didn't seem to have much precedence outside of Rome --- which, I suspect, is the reason they were ultimately chosen.
> 
> This, of course, begs the question as to just how close _our_ Synoptics are to the ones canonized in 330 CE. It is already a well-known fact that Mark (the only Gospel containing the Resurrection scene) did not contain the Ressurection scene in its earliest extant forms. These were added in later. Who knows how many elements in our current Synoptics were later additions, or how much of the original were excised in those early days??
> 
> ...


Constantine was a political ruler who converted to Christianity, whether conscious of it or not, the canonized gospels all fall in line with the favorable party line of the day - much like the King James version of the bible 'pleased' the King (James obviously) - and was partially and attempt by the earthly leader (Constantine) to be the "one ruler" both divinely/earthly royal.  By doing this Constantine was trying to usurped the popularity and support of 'heretical' Christians (Gnostics) and create an early version of 'centralized/federal government' in the form of making a governmentally approved religious view.  This gave Constantine religious and political/legal justification to take out any groups who disagreed and nip rebellions in the bud.

The attempts of Vatican II were to return to a version of (again approved by a council of like minded types ) the pre-political Universal church that recognized the spirit and personal relationship of Catholics was as/if not more important than observances of customs and rituals.  An example is the shift in language from "Confession" to "Reconcilliation."  In the early modern "Pay, Pray and Obey" mentallity "confession was about spewing all your bad things out and receiving penance that was piped through the priest (Christa in Persona) from God.  In the shift to Reconcilliation, it is really about how the individual understands what was 'wrong' and how to grow from it spiritually.  It also emphasises the Scriptual idea of reconciling with any parties that you have wronged or have a problem with as part of the process of Reconcilling with God.  It is really a beautiful growth experience with the right mind/spirit of the person.  Heck, the priest even talks to you like a human being!  If anything that is an improvement.

It is hard to get a "literal" take on a body of texts that has been interpretted how many times? By how many people? With how many personal, political and professional agendas?  The spirit may be divine, but the flesh is weak....


----------



## loki09789 (May 17, 2004)

Sorry for posting after that Blab but something else:

Generally speaking, for Catholics, priests taking theology are trained that the material of the old testament pre-Abram (Abraham) is probably mythical.  Abram-post Abraham (through the New testament) is accepted as having some historical accuracy/substance.  The most important thing for Catholics isn't the literal interpretation as Tulisan has already mentioned but the verification of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah, finding supporting texts that justify the 7 sacraments as holy and the ultimate goals/teachings of Jesus according to the Scriptures.  Under Vatican II the confusion is that a personal relationship is encouraged - as long as you tow the line of canon law .  Guess it really comes down to "Faith in Works" for me personally.


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

> Just to bring up a point, since I don't want to ruin your one sided thread.



One-sided, my ****.

Different viewpoints have been expressed: my Gnostic/Docetic position, Paul and Loki's "Liberal Catholic" position, Canuck's position concerning Jewish Law, and Someguy's "pseudo-agnostic" position.

Then again, if you only see the world in black and white (or, in this case, 'true Christians' and 'everybody else'), it would probably seem one-sided.

Don't think that just because nobody has championed your particular viewpoint yet (by and large because we are talking about historical subtleties, and your uber-literalist position is pretty much devoid of any historical basis or proof), that the discussion is being 'one-sided'.



> Cross cousins does not mean incest. It's ok to have 5th and 6th cousins marry. Just not 1st-4th.



Depends on your definition of 'incest' --- you'll find in anthropology that, while all cultures have _some_ kind of definition regarding what incest is, the actual definitions themselves vary wildly. Regardless, most cultures _do_ allow cross-cousin marriage.



> Your Hallachic (Legal status) as a Jew is through the mother. Lineage (or tribal affiliation) is through the father.



Thanks for the clarification, Canuck!!  :asian: 

Of course, this still brings us back to the dilemma for the Christian believer:
1) Jesus was born of a Virgin, and is not of the Line of David, or
2) Jesus was not born of a Virgin, and is of the Line of David.

This is one of the many reasons I don't look upon the New Testament (or the Bible as a whole) as being a particularly "historical" document --- although, I freely admit it has innumerable other values and worth.



> Constantine was a political ruler who converted to Christianity, whether conscious of it or not, the canonized gospels all fall in line with the favorable party line of the day - much like the King James version of the bible 'pleased' the King (James obviously) - and was partially and attempt by the earthly leader (Constantine) to be the "one ruler" both divinely/earthly royal. By doing this Constantine was trying to usurped the popularity and support of 'heretical' Christians (Gnostics) and create an early version of 'centralized/federal government' in the form of making a governmentally approved religious view. This gave Constantine religious and political/legal justification to take out any groups who disagreed and nip rebellions in the bud.



I agree completely.

I have found very little evidence that the Four Synoptics were of any particular relevance to the early (pre-4th century) Christian community on the whole. Only a handful of Christian leaders every reference them (prior to the 3rd century, only Irenaeus and Tertullian do so in a non-dubious manner*), and they are always _without exception_ centered in Rome. The most popular, pervasive, and widespread schools of Christianity were, without doubt, the Marcionite and Valentinian (as even their critics acknowledge) --- Marcion and Valentinus were also the first Christian leaders to draw upon Paul's letters to any substantive degree (Justin Martyr seems completely ignorant of Paul).

* (It should be noted that other, earlier Christian leaders _do_ refer to Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. However, these are always done so in a dubious fashion, such as Papias' "Matthew" being described as little more than a "collection of oracles", indicating that even if it does have a relation to _our_ Matthew, it is clearly not in the form we possess now.

The problem is further confounded when we acknowledge that virtually all of these early Christian leaders [Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc] are used rather _disingenously_ by late 2nd century apologetics like Irenaeus and Tertullian, and their letters were even further edited and revised during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well. 

Thus, all in all, these individuals are not very reliable sources in regards to tracing the historicity of the Synoptics.)



> The attempts of Vatican II were to return to a version of (again approved by a council of like minded types ) the pre-political Universal church



I think the major problem with that, although noble, approach is that the "pre-political" Christian community was not very _universal_ or _catholic_ at all. The various and divergent Gnostic schools were by far the most widespread and pervasive, not the literalist schools in Rome. The problem is further confounded if we include the Jewish/Ebonite schools popular around Jerusalem.

The very sad historical truth is that Christianity became _unified_ or _catholicized_ only with the political purges at the behest of Constantine. Before that time, Christianity was FAR more diverse then that it even is today.



> It is hard to get a "literal" take on a body of texts that has been interpretted how many times? By how many people? With how many personal, political and professional agendas? The spirit may be divine, but the flesh is weak....



Indeed. And it gets even worse when we know as a historical fact that "our" Gospels (including both the Synoptics and the Pauline letters) have been added to and edited time and time again. I mentioned the Resurrection scene added to Mark --- this is not the only example of such changes (with Paul's earliest letters, such as Galatians and Corinthians, seeing the most radical changes). It becomes a truly daunting task to even consider wading through all this mess to attempt to come to the "original intentions" of the authors (whomever they may be).



> Generally speaking, for Catholics, priests taking theology are trained that the material of the old testament pre-Abram (Abraham) is probably mythical.



I'm guessing that's one of the reasons the Catholic Church has officially recognized the theory of evolution as "reality". 

Laterz.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 18, 2004)

Just a little comment to stir the pot a little. The truth is virgin pregnancies happen all the time. It simply means the hyman remains unbroken, and can be swam past.
Sean


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

> Just a little comment to stir the pot a little. The truth is virgin pregnancies happen all the time. It simply means the hyman remains unbroken, and can be swam past.



Heh. Somehow I don't think that's what the Gospel authors quite had in mind, TOD --- especially considering a similar tale of "virgin birth" is found in Euripides' _Bacchae_ with the god-man Dionysus.

Come to think of it, a lotta the Gospel stuff seems to have been "borrowed" from the Bacchae.....


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 18, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Heh. Somehow I don't think that's what the Gospel authors quite had in mind, TOD --- especially considering a similar tale of "virgin birth" is found in Euripides' _Bacchae_ with the god-man Dionysus.
> 
> Come to think of it, a lotta the Gospel stuff seems to have been "borrowed" from the Bacchae.....


Exactly, The words Jesus' trimphant return literaly mean Jesus will be just like Dionysus.
Sean


----------



## xianshino (May 18, 2004)

Any Rush fans out there??


----------



## Cruentus (May 18, 2004)

Um...not me dude!


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 18, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Any Rush fans out there??


Absolutly, he is an excellent example of a functioning drug addict, and an inspiration for us all :uhyeah: .
Sean


----------



## xianshino (May 18, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Absolutly, he is an excellent example of a functioning drug addict, and an inspiration for us all :uhyeah: .
> Sean


Not fat Rush, I meant the band Rush!!!!!
They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.
There is a song that mentions Dionysus..
just wondering cause I'm a huge Rush fan!  :boing2:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 18, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Not fat Rush, I meant the band Rush!!!!!
> They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.
> There is a song that mentions Dionysus..
> just wondering cause I'm a huge Rush fan!  :boing2:




Absolutely!!!

great Canadian band. Of course the lead signer sounds like his shorts are on too tight


----------



## xianshino (May 18, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Absolutely!!!
> 
> great Canadian band. Of course the lead signer sounds like his shorts are on too tight


LOL!!  It's definately an acquired taste as far as his voice is concerned.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 18, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Not fat Rush, I meant the band Rush!!!!!
> They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.
> There is a song that mentions Dionysus..
> just wondering cause I'm a huge Rush fan!  :boing2:


I just loved the, "Carress of Steel" album( I listen to it all the time and its the only Rush I own) but outside of that... No I don't like the rock band Rush either. :asian:  
Sean


----------



## xianshino (May 18, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I just loved the, "Carress of Steel" album( I listen to it all the time and its the only Rush I own) but outside of that... No I don't like the rock band Rush either. :asian:
> Sean


Seeing as since Caress of Steel is one of their least popular albums out of the 20+ studio albums recorded, you should probably pick up Hemispheres or Moving Pictures.  :ultracool


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

> Exactly, The words Jesus' trimphant return literaly mean Jesus will be just like Dionysus.



Riding on a donkey into the holy city, no less?? Oh wait... that's in there, too!!  :uhyeah: 

To those interested, you really might want to take a read of the Bacchae to see some of the _very interesting_ parallels yourself --- the scenes concerning Dionysus changing water into wine at a wedding, and of his Transfiguration on a mountain are very provocative.



> They have alot of mythology and collections of writings such as Ayn Rand in their music.



Hrmmm.... very interesting.

Laterz.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 18, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Seeing as since Caress of Steel is one of their least popular albums out of the 20+ studio albums recorded, you should probably pick up Hemispheres or Moving Pictures.  :ultracool


Actualy they were moving in a direction I was very intrigued by, and the abandonded that direction because it was just me. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## loki09789 (May 18, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Riding on a donkey into the holy city, no less?? Oh wait... that's in there, too!! :uhyeah:
> 
> To those interested, you really might want to take a read of the Bacchae to see some of the _very interesting_ parallels yourself --- the scenes concerning Dionysus changing water into wine at a wedding, and of his Transfiguration on a mountain are very provocative.
> 
> ...


I knew there was a reason why my prof.  had us read old greek classics side by side with bibilcal text in my "Bible as Lit" course.  Once christianity and control of the who, what, when, where, why and how of being christian was in the hands of roman rulers who were going retro because they idealized grecian culture, the 'ideal' christian started to look awefully similar to good roman/grecian citizenship.  Jesus and other heroic figures did adopt a very grecian formula in certain regards.

Does any of this mean that I am down on my chosen faith?  No.  I am stronger in it because many of the kiddie story level of sophistications that most of us never really dig deeper than - but doubt because the stories are too simplistic - are gone.

I think Jesus was a real man, he was messianic and that he did act as a hero.  A priest once said that Jesus was the original hippie.  I would say, based on my current knowledge, interpretation and faith that he was more of a Ghandi-ish figure.

Part of the reason why the Jewish people, at least in that region, rejected Jesus (according to anthros/historians - some of which are christian btw) is because he didn't fit their messiah as warrior.  Jesus satisfied all the items on the Christ checklist (mule ride and such) but he was not a 'second coming of King David' which is what the Jews of the day were looking for.

Jesus shook the tree because he lived and taught the spirit of love over revenge.  Jews ready to break out from under the thumb of Rome weren't interested in looking inward at themselves, the Pharasee or anything else.  THey wanted a Moses, David kick ash and take names with the blessing of God kind of leader.  All that spiritual mumbo jumbo could come later.


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

Ummm.... no offense, guys, but all this is kinda off-topic.  :uhyeah:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 18, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Part of the reason why the Jewish people, at least in that region, rejected Jesus (according to anthros/historians - some of which are christian btw) is because he didn't fit their messiah as warrior.  Jesus satisfied all the items on the Christ checklist (mule ride and such) but he was not a 'second coming of King David' which is what the Jews of the day were looking for.
> 
> Jesus shook the tree because he lived and taught the spirit of love over revenge.  Jews ready to break out from under the thumb of Rome weren't interested in looking inward at themselves, the Pharasee or anything else.  THey wanted a Moses, David kick ash and take names with the blessing of God kind of leader.  All that spiritual mumbo jumbo could come later.



No. Jesus did not meet any of the requisites for Messiah. 'Mule ride'? The Jewish Messiah is to be 1) a man 2) of the line of David (through his father) 3) to ubite the Jewish kingdoms ( in these days it pretty much to unite the Jews) 4) who will bring peace and order to the world.


----------



## Nightingale (May 18, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ummm.... no offense, guys, but all this is kinda off-topic.  :uhyeah:




hehe... and I was just about to get out my topic-bat too!


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

> Once christianity and control of the who, what, when, where, why and how of being christian was in the hands of roman rulers who were going retro because they idealized grecian culture, the 'ideal' christian started to look awefully similar to good roman/grecian citizenship. Jesus and other heroic figures did adopt a very grecian formula in certain regards.



No doubt. Of course, Christianity itself was by and large based on many Pagan ideas --- especially within the Pauline channels. The entire notion of giving up possessions, home, and family to pursue "the Way" absolutely reaks of Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, Cynicism, et al (and is not indicative of traditional Judaism, "honor thy father and mother", at all). Even the term "the Way" comes from Stoic and Cynic circles. The Synoptic obsession with numbers (particularly in the "feeding of the masses" scenes), as well as Jesus' own name (Iesous = 888), is indicative of Pythagoreanism. Furthermore, the oft-seen "Jesus fish" itself is a Pythagorean symbol.

Paul's letters openly flout with Platonic ideas (seeing God "face to face" and "seeing through the mirror darkly"), and the entire "sacrificed martyr" theme and the 30 silver pieces offered as a "betrayal" reminds one distinctively of Socrates' end (as reported by Plato).

The most telling evidence, though, is in art. I have personally seen Grecian vases dating to the 2nd century B.C.E., which figure Dionysus on them. Dionysus is portrayed as young and handsome, with a full mustache and beard, wearing fancy robes, a crown of thorns or weeds, and seems to be tied or strapped to a large tree (I reference Galatians and Corinthians, in which Paul refers to Jesus as "hung on a tree"). At his feet is in altar, showing what appears to be a jar of some liquid (as Dionysus is the God of Wine, I leave you to guess what is being poured) and a pile of loaves of bread.

The symbolic parallels are so obvious that its painful.



> I think Jesus was a real man, he was messianic and that he did act as a hero. A priest once said that Jesus was the original hippie. I would say, based on my current knowledge, interpretation and faith that he was more of a Ghandi-ish figure.



If Jesus truly did exist, I would agree. I myself believe Jesus may have been the first great Bodhissatva of the West --- the entire notion of Jesus as "God taking human form" for the express purpose of suffering to save all of humanity is SO amazingly reminiscent of the Bodhissatva Vow (for all you Buddhists) that its mind-boggling.



> Jesus shook the tree because he lived and taught the spirit of love over revenge. Jews ready to break out from under the thumb of Rome weren't interested in looking inward at themselves, the Pharasee or anything else. THey wanted a Moses, David kick ash and take names with the blessing of God kind of leader. All that spiritual mumbo jumbo could come later.



If you ask me, that is very telling to many modern day "Christians" as well. Instead of true spiritual development (Boddhi, Gnosis, etc.), everyone is looking for political and social changes --- as if that will make all their personal problems and suffering just "go away". Its harder to look inward.



> No. Jesus did not meet any of the requisites for Messiah. 'Mule ride'? The Jewish Messiah is to be 1) a man 2) of the line of David (through his father) 3) to ubite the Jewish kingdoms ( in these days it pretty much to unite the Jews) 4) who will bring peace and order to the world.



I'm inclined to agree with this, as well --- the "Christ" of the original Christians was without doubt primarily based on Hellenistic religious concepts, and not traditional Jewish ones.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 18, 2004)

> hehe... and I was just about to get out my topic-bat too!



 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (May 18, 2004)

Paul M. made some good points; I would just like to add a little to them.

From my Catholic perspective, evidence of a Jesus character in other religions only further supports our premises of Jesus. "Catholic" means universal, and this idea can be applied in many different ways. Generally speaking, if it's "true" it's "true." In other words, if the buddhist, the Catholic, and the Agnostic believe that it isn't right to steal, then this is good. If there is a flood story in many other cultures outside of the Bible, then this helps support truth in that story. If there is a "Jesus character" in other religions, then this helps support truth in our "Jesus character" as well.

I hope I explained that right!   

Now, that doesn't mean that Catholics don't have a standard, or that we have a "everybody's right" attitude. And certianly, there are Catholics who will go beyond the written doctrine to tell you how right their perspective is, and how wrong everyone else is. And obviously, the Catholic is going to believe in the Catholic perspective over others. It is just that I believe that although through Christ is the only way to heaven, there are many roads to get there, and everyone is on their own journey. As long as our works are "Christ-like" (regardless of what religion you belong to) then we'll get our questions answered in heaven. I am sure that I'll be able to make many corrections on my own beliefs then, provided that I end up there!   



> No. Jesus did not meet any of the requisites for Messiah. 'Mule ride'? The Jewish Messiah is to be 1) a man 2) of the line of David (through his father) 3) to ubite the Jewish kingdoms ( in these days it pretty much to unite the Jews) 4) who will bring peace and order to the world.



From your modern-Jewish perspective, this seems the most correct to you. However, not everyone would agree, myself included. I just wouldn't be so "matter of fact" about it when there are other perspectives out there.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 18, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> From your modern-Jewish perspective, this seems the most correct to you. However, not everyone would agree, myself included. I just wouldn't be so "matter of fact" about it when there are other perspectives out there.




WADR, when deciding whether a Jew meets the Jewish criterion for the Messiah, other religion's views, especially the religion that is founded on the person being the Messiah, is not relevant. You make statements that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Jews at the tme just did not want to accept it, and I'm just telling you that it wasn't so much a refusal to acept, as much as a lack of credentials.


----------



## Cruentus (May 18, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> WADR, when deciding whether a Jew meets the Jewish criterion for the Messiah, other religion's views, especially the religion that is founded on the person being the Messiah, is not relevant. You make statements that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Jews at the tme just did not want to accept it, and I'm just telling you that it wasn't so much a refusal to acept, as much as a lack of credentials.



I am not disagreeing with you that the ancient Jews felt that Jesus lacked the credentials. I am just saying that it depends on how you look at the credentials.  :wink1:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 18, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I am not disagreeing with you that the ancient Jews felt that Jesus lacked the credentials. I am just saying that it depends on how you look at the credentials.  :wink1:



For a Jew to be the Jewish Messiah, there is only ONE way to look at the credentials.

You telling me what the credentials are, is just about as valid as me telling that the current Pope does not have the right credentials for the job.

You want to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, knock yourself out. Just stop trying to tell the Jews that we are wrong.


----------



## Nightingale (May 18, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Paul M. made some good points; I would just like to add a little to them.
> 
> From my Catholic perspective, evidence of a Jesus character in other religions only further supports our premises of Jesus. "Catholic" means universal, and this idea can be applied in many different ways. Generally speaking, if it's "true" it's "true." In other words, if the buddhist, the Catholic, and the Agnostic believe that it isn't right to steal, then this is good. If there is a flood story in many other cultures outside of the Bible, then this helps support truth in that story. If there is a "Jesus character" in other religions, then this helps support truth in our "Jesus character" as well.
> 
> I hope I explained that right!





The problem with this is that the stories of Bacchus and Dionysus predate the Jesus stories by 500 years.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 18, 2004)

In an odd way, it's quite right to say that in Christian theology, the Bacchus (or Balder or whover) story can help confirm the truth of the Gospels. Basically, the idea is that everything in nature--and in human culture--points to the central event of Christ. So, the Bacchus story points forward to the plain revelation of the real thing, just as (for example) the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament points forward to the Crucifixion.

Part of what Christian fundamentalists are kinda sorta doinbg, in fact, is to argue against waht used to be called the "fourfold," interpretation of the Bible--they want the Boble, generally speaking, to be read literally, on a surface level only--and yet at the same time, the Pat Robertson types are always talking about how, for example, Hussein was predicted by Revelations...


----------



## Cruentus (May 18, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In an odd way, it's quite right to say that in Christian theology, the Bacchus (or Balder or whover) story can help confirm the truth of the Gospels. Basically, the idea is that everything in nature--and in human culture--points to the central event of Christ. So, the Bacchus story points forward to the plain revelation of the real thing, just as (for example) the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament points forward to the Crucifixion.



Yes, that was brilliantly put. This is exactly why it is not a problem for me (and most Catholics/Christians who understand their faith) that Dionysus predates Christ.



> Part of what Christian fundamentalists are kinda sorta doinbg, in fact, is to argue against waht used to be called the "fourfold," interpretation of the Bible--they want the Boble, generally speaking, to be read literally, on a surface level only--and yet at the same time, the Pat Robertson types are always talking about how, for example, Hussein was predicted by Revelations...



Heh. That is why I don't agree with taking the bible on a lteral, surface level only!
 :uhyeah:


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> From my Catholic perspective, evidence of a Jesus character in other religions only further supports our premises of Jesus. "Catholic" means universal, and this idea can be applied in many different ways. Generally speaking, if it's "true" it's "true." In other words, if the buddhist, the Catholic, and the Agnostic believe that it isn't right to steal, then this is good. If there is a flood story in many other cultures outside of the Bible, then this helps support truth in that story. If there is a "Jesus character" in other religions, then this helps support truth in our "Jesus character" as well.



You seem here to be supporting the Perennial Philosophy (first coined by Leibniz, and first popularized by Huxley) --- which, if so, would make many of your "Catholic" claims very _interesting_, to say the very least.



> WADR, when deciding whether a Jew meets the Jewish criterion for the Messiah, other religion's views, especially the religion that is founded on the person being the Messiah, is not relevant. You make statements that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Jews at the tme just did not want to accept it, and I'm just telling you that it wasn't so much a refusal to acept, as much as a lack of credentials.



It could be a mess of other things, too.

There is, as far as I know, no Jewish commentary on Jesus dating to within a few centuries of his supposed historical existence (unless you count the likes of Josephus). Thus, any "Jesus was not the Messiah" comments by later Jews could have just been commentaries on the Christian presentation of Jesus (as within the Gospel story), rather than actual historical commentaries.

As such, I still maintain that Jesus most likely did not exist historically. Thusly, it would only make sense that he would not meet the criterion of Messiah-hood. 



> The problem with this is that the stories of Bacchus and Dionysus predate the Jesus stories by 500 years.



Much more than that, actually --- the _Bacchus_ by Euripides predates the Jesus story by about 500 years, but the actual myths do not. The myths predate the Jesus story by well over a thousand years.



> In an odd way, it's quite right to say that in Christian theology, the Bacchus (or Balder or whover) story can help confirm the truth of the Gospels. Basically, the idea is that everything in nature--and in human culture--points to the central event of Christ. So, the Bacchus story points forward to the plain revelation of the real thing, just as (for example) the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament points forward to the Crucifixion.





> Yes, that was brilliantly put. This is exactly why it is not a problem for me (and most Catholics/Christians who understand their faith) that Dionysus predates Christ.



This is, of course, extremely biased and lopsided thinking.

Such arguments were originally created as a less 'extreme' form of the inane Diabolical Mimicry (in which all evidence contrary to the Scriptures, such as evolutionary fossil records, are relegated to deceptions on the part of Satan), but the thinking is the same.

Originally, to combat accusations that the Christ story was based (in part or in whole) on previous Pagan myths, Christian apologetics like Justin Martyr resorted to Diabolical Mimicry: namely, that the Devil -- knowing the exact details of Christ's life on earth to come --- created all these 'Pagan' philosophies, religions, and myths to pre-mimic the Jesus story as closely as possible. This was apparently done for the express purpose of deceiving Christian believers centuries later.

The Christ Prefigurement idea is little different. The notion is to take all existing evidence that supposedly contradicts or questions the Christ story as history (such as the details of the Dyonisian myth), and turn it upon itself. Instead of relying on the _much more logical and believable_ notion that the early Christians based some of their ideas and beliefs on the popular religions of the time, the believer instead turns it around and claims all evidence that seems to disprove the historicity of the Jesus story actually _proves_ it. 

This is, of course, a double-standard of nearly unparalled proportions. This would be like using fossil records to 'prove' evolution doesn't actually happen, or using the rotations of the earth around the sun to 'prove' that the earth is really the center of the universe. Namely, what you are doing is taking evidence and claiming it proves the _exact opposite_ of what it claims to prove.

We notice, also, that there is the recurrent ethnocentrism of the idea, as well --- all religions in the world actually point to the truth of our religion. Translation: we're right, everyone else is wrong. 

Who is to say that the Jesus story was not _also_ a part of this 'mythical prefigurement' seeking to prove the historicity of a later god-man, like Manes in the 3rd century?? Why is the Christian story so special?? Why is it not that the Christ story is itself not part of the same trend of 'mythical prefigurement'??

The only answer to such questions, of course is "because its our religion". Cultural bias and ethnocentrism at its worst. People probably made similar claims about Osiris' story "prefiguring" Dionysus' story in the 2nd century BCE. And, it was equally dubious then, as well.

So, the double-standard of 'mythical prefigurement' is twofold:
1) It attempts to 'throw out' all evidence questioning the historicty of the Jesus story by turning it against itself.
2) It bases its claims on the special 'rightness' of the Christian religion over the others, with no evidence for this other than cultural ethnocentrism.

This isn't anything 'perennial' or 'catholic' here. This is an attempt to see the faiths, religions, and myths of _all other peoples but one's own_ as actually 'proving' the Christian one. A perennial approach would to say that all religions and faiths point to a universal experience of human spirituality, not that they point to the rightness of a particular culture's historical and religious claims.

Laterz.


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

In the end it all comes down to faith.  You either choose to belive or belive in something else or not belive it.  My choice s to belive in Christ and God and wait and see about the rest.  This of course doesn't mean I wooun't think about it but I also won' say I really know much of anything about anything.  Can anybody honestly say the KNOW much about anything.  Not think they no or pretty sure they know but tto absolutly 100% KNOW anything?


----------



## xianshino (May 19, 2004)

well said Someguy,
I also believe it comes down to faith.


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

Lopsided thinking? Well, not if it's true.

Logical? Believable? That depends. People will believe what their unconscience allows them to believe. There is evidence to support many ideas. There is evidence to support the Christian premise. There is also evidence to support that Jesus was only a mythical figure. Is any of this evidence material? No, not in as much that it proves any perspective beyond reasonable doubt. All you can do is assert your position and move on. However, since we are not dealing with material evidence, one has to understand what is in their own unconscience that allows them to believe one premises over another. When one begins to understand this, then one can try to decifer the "truth" for themselves.

In terms of "rightness" of one belief over another, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. If I didn't think that my faith was "more right" then buddhism, then I'd be buddhist. I think that this only becomes dangerous when everyone else becomes "wrong" over your belief.

 :asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Well, the only thing in this world that I know 100% is that God Loves me and that he's the only person I can trust through thick and thin. He's gotten me this far and I know that he has so much in store for my life. And, yes, it all comes down to that one word: FAITH. To me, Faith is believing in what you can't see, but you choose to do so. AKA blind faith.


A question: Can you see the wind?


----------



## Nightingale (May 19, 2004)

hehe. I work in downtown LA.  Yes, you can see the wind.  You can also see the air.  ick.  

However, under most circumstances, you can't see the wind.  BUT, you can measure wind, therefore, your comparison doesn't quite work. You can also see the way wind directly influences objects around it, and you can draw a diorect conclusion that the motion of the objects is on account of the wind, because wind is tangible, whereas God is not.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Ah, but you can see the results of the God's power. Just most can't see it because they don't look for it. You can't see the wind but you can see the results because you know where to look and also know about its results, etc. Most people don't look or don't know how to look at The results of God's power. It's a matter of knowing. The wind is simple and easy to find results in because it has no mind and also only one way of expressing itself. God created it and gave it a purpose. 


P.S. That sanchin video from here is too freaky....Sounds like darth vader meets the predator...lol


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

also even though you can measure the wind, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The machine measures and registers it, not you yourself. So, you have to have faith that the results are true and a fact.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 19, 2004)

On the subject of "Christain Wackiness", but off the topic specifically at hand...

If "Survival of the Fittest" is the rule of thumb in evolution

And A single celled organizim is more "fit to survive" than a creature with complex biology...

How the hell could we have evolved from an Ameoba?

I don't deny that evolution happens... we have seen it... but can ANYONE provide me an example of one Species evolving into another species?

And where are the like 5-6 missing steps in the evolotion of man from ape that sicence has "Faith" in the existance of, that they have yet to prove exsit?  

Im pretty skeptical on evolution, even looking at the scientific end of it.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Well, there is a professor that said and still says today the same thing.

Creation Science Evangelist _Dr. Kent Hovind _Says this:
         "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."

www.drdino.com

And no one has yet to come up with evidence. So what they are teaching in school is junk. If they say that you can't prove Christianity because there is no "physical" evidence, how can you prove evolution with no evidence? The most ludicrous Idea I ever heard was teaching a false creation in school. Anyways, that was off subject...LOL

:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> On the subject of "Christain Wackiness", but off the topic specifically at hand...
> 
> If "Survival of the Fittest" is the rule of thumb in evolution
> 
> ...


As for how we might have evolved from a single celled organism, I would figure adaptation after adaptation. "First you were in the goo, then you was in the zoo, and now your you."
Sean


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

I made a thread so evolution can be disscused.
Btw i could go more in depth on proofs of God's existance and how they really aren't proof at all but that would require another topic but quickly said you can't absoulutly know there is a God as there isn't so thing sitting around going I'm God heres a miracle to prove it.  And the "proofs" of God such as Anselm's ain't worth the paper it was printed on.  Of course that paper wold probably be worth quite alot now but still.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> I made a thread so evolution can be disscused.
> Btw i could go more in depth on proofs of God's existance and how they really aren't proof at all but that would require another topic but quickly said you can't absoulutly know there is a God as there isn't so thing sitting around going I'm God heres a miracle to prove it.  And the "proofs" of God such as Anselm's ain't worth the paper it was printed on.  Of course that paper wold probably be worth quite alot now but still.


Why is it so hard to believe that thegreat watchmaker in the sky made self improving watches? And being that God exists outside of space time, perhaps, he is making the repairs.
Sean


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

If He exists outside of time He knows what needs to be repaired before it was made.  Of course before involves time but still.


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Well, there is a professor that said and still says today the same thing.
> 
> Creation Science Evangelist _Dr. Kent Hovind _Says this:
> "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."
> ...



How would you like it if I told you there was "no evidence" that Jesus ever existed, so what they teach at your church is junk?

I hate it when people do that. You have evidence to support christianity, which you choose to believe. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, which you choose not to believe.

If you want to refute the evidence, that is one thing, but to say their is "no evidence" is an insult.

Evolution to me is a sound scientific theory; it's truth or untruth won't change my religious beliefs.


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

And...I am retarded....I didn't see that knew thread...sorry guys.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> In the end it all comes down to faith. You either choose to belive or belive in something else or not belive it.



Ummmmm..... no, not really.

Some things are a matter of "faith". Some things are a matter of _evidence_. It depends on the individual issue being discussed, really.

Just because you believe something to be true, when we have evidence against it, does not make it true. We _know_, for example, within a relative margin of certainty, that the world (indeed, the universe) is far older than 6,000 years (as the Biblical fundamentalists claim). All the faith in the world does not change this.

At the same time, there are certain issues for which we have very little (if any) evidence --- such as the existence of parallel universes. This does not necessarily preclude that such issues are necessarily false, but that there is currently no real empirical basis for their existence or viability. In such cases, I suppose all one really has is "faith". Or "intuition".

As before, it depends on the specific issue being discussed.



> Can anybody honestly say the KNOW much about anything. Not think they no or pretty sure they know but tto absolutly 100% KNOW anything?



Well, first off, you just asked two completely different questions --- "knowing much" about a subject and "absolutely 100% knowing" a subject are two completely different things.

There are quite a few subjects for which we are currently fairly knowledgeable of. By no means does this mean we possess an ultimate or complete knowledge of the subject, but it also does not mean that we are completely in the dark. 

Sorry to ruin your preconceptions, but epistemology just isn't all that black and white --- while the "100% absolute" knowledge you reference is an _impossibility_ within our relative world of time and space, this does not relegate all knowledge to guesswork or "faith".



> Lopsided thinking? Well, not if it's true.



If so, its a "truth" for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever (unless you're going to tell me you can "prove" all the world's religions somehow prefigure and point to your especially unique and "chosen" one). 

Its also a "truth" based on cultural bias and extreme ethnocentrism --- namely, it claims for itself what it denies to all other peoples and cultures. This 'Mythical Prefigurement' assumes that the doctrines of its faith are historically and factually correct, while further assuming that the doctrines of all other faiths are historically and factually false (despite the fact that they share many features in common). Furthermore, not only does it claim the doctrines of other faiths are factually incorrect, but that these foreign religions exist for the _purpose_ of "proving" the validity of one's own. This is cultural arrogance and elitism at its worst.

Not only does this claim say: I'm right, they're wrong. It also says: I'm right, they're wrong, and they're secretly admitting this, too.

There is no reason to assume that Christianity is anymore factually correct or historical than the likes of, say, Mithraism or Orphism --- outside of cultural bias, that is (meaning, it must be correct because its "my religion"). I could easily apply the claims you're making about Dionysus and Osiris to Jesus in regards to the figure of Manes (3rd to 4th centuries CE). Manicheism contains a god-man figure that includes many of the elements found in the early Pagan myths and in the Gospel story --- I guess that now means Jesus didn't really exist, the Gospel story is bunk, and Christianity exists for the _sole_ purpose of 'prefiguring' the Savior Manes. See the irrational logic here??

Dionysian literalists no doubt believed the earlier myths of Osiris were created to "prefigure" the supposedly historical events of Dionysus' life. Such a claim is as equally dubious as the Christian one, and for much the same reasons ---it has absolutely no empirical or logical basis outside of ethnocentric beliefs (namely, that "our religion" is right and all others are wrong).

If Manicheism somehow had managed to trump Christianity as the world's pre-eminent world religion, I'm sure you would be arguing right now about how the 'mythical Jesus' actually prefigured the coming of your historical Savior Manes. And it would still be an equally dubious claim then, too.

I do find it interesting (and humorous), however, that no one started supporting this 'Mythical Prefigurement' belief in Christianity until the Pagan accusations of them "stealing" their ideas became widely known. I guess no Christian apparently "realized" that Dionysus prefigured Jesus until they were accused by Dionysians of plagiarism. Very, very interesting.



> Logical? Believable? That depends. People will believe what their unconscience allows them to believe.



Poppycock. To believe that every human's unconscious is secretly telling them what to think and believe is the height of folly, and definately not something supported in experimental pschology.

Now, its true that this applies to _some_ people. But, by no means is it a universal human behavior.



> There is evidence to support many ideas. There is evidence to support the Christian premise. There is also evidence to support that Jesus was only a mythical figure. Is any of this evidence material? No, not in as much that it proves any perspective beyond reasonable doubt.



You have a very interesting definition of what constitutes 'material' evidence....

Regardless, just because there is "evidence" for different positions does _not_ mean all have an equal amount of such evidence. Some have more evidence (which is both material and logical), and some do not. Indeed, some positions merely _believe_ they have convincing "evidence" when they truly do not. 

It is up to the critical mind to decipher which is which, and to thusly come to his/her own conclusion.



> However, since we are not dealing with material evidence, one has to understand what is in their own unconscience that allows them to believe one premises over another. When one begins to understand this, then one can try to decifer the "truth" for themselves.



This, of course, attempts to subtly deny the validity of mental and logical proofs (such as those used in both philosophy and mathematics) --- a completely inviable position. As any student of Critical Thinking or Philosophy will tell you.



> In terms of "rightness" of one belief over another, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. If I didn't think that my faith was "more right" then buddhism, then I'd be buddhist. I think that this only becomes dangerous when everyone else becomes "wrong" over your belief.



I fail to see how your 'Mythical Prefigurement' is not guilty of just that.

Not only does 'Mythical Prefigurement' claim that all other religions and myths than the Christian are false and incorrect --- it further claims that they actually point to, or prefigure, the validity of Christianity itself (unconsciously, it seems). That seems pretty damn similar to what you just condemned above.



> Ah, but you can see the results of the God's power. Just most can't see it because they don't look for it.



This sounds very similar of the many incidents of "helping" therapists _allowing_ clients to remember childhood abuses that never actually happened ("Can't remember it, Billy?? Look deeper...").

Its easy to believe anything --- when you have a little "help".   



> You can't see the wind but you can see the results because you know where to look and also know about its results, etc. Most people don't look or don't know how to look at The results of God's power. It's a matter of knowing. The wind is simple and easy to find results in because it has no mind and also only one way of expressing itself. God created it and gave it a purpose.



The difference: We have proof of the effects and existence of the wind. We do not have proof for the existence of God (well, not the _kind_ of God you're referencing anyway).



> Btw i could go more in depth on proofs of God's existance and how they really aren't proof at all but that would require another topic but quickly said you can't absoulutly know there is a God as there isn't so thing sitting around going I'm God heres a miracle to prove it. And the "proofs" of God such as Anselm's ain't worth the paper it was printed on. Of course that paper wold probably be worth quite alot now but still.



The simple truth is that there are no tenable mental or logical "proofs" of God's existence. Certain logical premises are interesting --- they may point to, or even indicate, a higher Power such as God. But, by no means does this constitute proof. And, there certainly isn't any physical proof of God's existence, either.

The only "proof" for God is transpersonal and transrational in nature --- "spiritual proofs", if you will. The evidence is found via contemplative prayer and meditation, and the laboratory is your own consciousness. All the sages and mystics of all the world's great religions are unanimous on this point. There is a reason most meditative and contemplative traditions regard themselves as "spiritual sciences" --- because that's exactly what they are.

But, the point remains that you'll never find this proof in the 'material' world 'out there', nor will you find it with mental and logical constructs. That's be like trying to figure out the nature of animal instincts by studying quarks, or trying to understand the finer working of the human psyche by piecing together algae. You can't come to a conclusion about the transmental using purely mental tools.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> How would you like it if I told you there was "no evidence" that Jesus ever existed, so what they teach at your church is junk?
> 
> I hate it when people do that. You have evidence to support christianity, which you choose to believe. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, which you choose not to believe.
> 
> ...



I agree.  :asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Nice double post Heretic...errr....lol. Anyways, People don't have proof of God because they don't look hard enough or want to accept the truth. They want what the Antichrist will be. He arises on earth, stops the wars and crap and makes things all hunky dorey for 42 months(well, with a few exceptions of plenty of death, on both believers and unbelievers sides). Everybody is happy. Well, I'd want to follow someone like that too. But he's a self-proclaimed Messiah. Anyways, wouldn't it bother you to know you could go to heaven for eternity instead of follow some self proclaimed "christ" who will give you peace(well, as best he can, which isn't much, but he'll still tell you it's ok) for only 7 yrs then all hell?

I had one question I never did ask: Do you believe in Heaven and Hell? The Hereafter? Let's open this question up for everyone...I never totally made this an open question. I'd really like to know

:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> Anyways, People don't have proof of God because they don't look hard enough or want to accept the truth.



No, people don't have "proof" of God because it cannot be acquired through either sensorimotor or mental tools (of course, this depends in part what you mean by "God").

The entire basis for your claim is that nobody believes what you believe because they're "scared" or "ignernt". The fundamentalist elitism, and perpetual lack of any proof (whether material or logical) remains.



> They want what the Antichrist will be. He arises on earth, stops the wars and crap and makes things all hunky dorey for 42 months(well, with a few exceptions of plenty of death, on both believers and unbelievers sides). Everybody is happy. Well, I'd want to follow someone like that too. But he's a self-proclaimed Messiah. Anyways, wouldn't it bother you to know you could go to heaven for eternity instead of follow some self proclaimed "christ" who will give you peace(well, as best he can, which isn't much, but he'll still tell you it's ok) for only 7 yrs then all hell?



No one comes on here to be preached to. Regurgitating what your pastor said last Sunday may seem like "proof" or "logic" to you, but not to those of us that have actually been taught to recognize such things.



> I had one question I never did ask: Do you believe in Heaven and Hell? The Hereafter?



Depends what you mean. I'm assuming you are referring to supposed literal places that one can spatially "go to". In such a case, I would say no.

I personally believe the relative self is ultimately illusory (but not relatively).


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

In response to Heretic's question about the validity in the historical evidence of Bible:

The Hittites left no written or hand made record of their history. One of the only places historians have been able to find any history of them is in the Bible.

And you know about the whole day that was lengthened during the battle with Joshua(don't know which one, I'll have to look it up, you can find it in the book of Joshua), there are other stories that coincide from other cultures, all over the continent of Asia, Africa, and other continents and countries. Joshua asked the Lord to lengthen the day so that they could have more time to defeat the enemy. Same day it happened the people all the way over on the other side of the continent felt the long day and recorded it as an extra long day. It's in so many cultural findings. Egypt, China, etc.

And yes, I know you think that it is just copied from other cultures, Egypt and such, but...you can believe it or not, it's been found to be pretty accurate by historians, and thats the only reason they could find for the extra long day.

:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

And I didn't regurgitate what My pastor told me. He didn't even talk about that this Sunday. I don't get all my info from my church. Of course, I know what response that will illicit. You think I'm some nut who reads from a book of poets and their stuff was just fantasy. Fine, well, obviously you only believe in logic. Logic has a dead, somewhat bitter, end somewhere and it's not pretty, whether you like it or not.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> The Hittites left no written or hand made record of their history. One of the only places historians have been able to find any history of them is in the Bible.



Even assuming that is true, that does not necessarily mean the "history" of them found in the Bible is actually accurate.



> And you know about the whole day that was lengthened during the battle with Joshua(don't know which one, I'll have to look it up, you can find it in the book of Joshua), there are other stories that coincide from other cultures, all over the continent of Asia, Africa, and other continents and countries. Joshua asked the Lord to lengthen the day so that they could have more time to defeat the enemy. Same day it happened the people all the way over on the other side of the continent felt the long day and recorded it as an extra long day. It's in so many cultural findings. Egypt, China, etc.



Prove it. Cite primary sources.



> And yes, I know you think that it is just copied from other cultures, Egypt and such, but...you can believe it or not, it's been found to be pretty accurate by historians, and thats the only reason they could find for the extra long day.



How about instead of saying something that is clearly controversial and debatable in nature is "proven accurate by historians", you actually cite specific scholars and writers??

The burden of proof is on you, buddy-boy. 



> Of course, I know what response that will illicit. You think I'm some nut who reads from a book of poets and their stuff was just fantasy.



No. I don't think poetry is "fantasy" by any means, including the Bible. But I also do not believe it constitutes "history" either.



> Fine, well, obviously you only believe in logic. Logic has a dead, somewhat bitter, end somewhere and it's not pretty, whether you like it or not.



I am well aware of the limitations of linear logic, and it is by no means the only thing I "believe in". I am just aware of its important strengths and contributions, however, and will not blindly believe something devoid of any logic or evidence.

Go take a Critical Thinking class. It will do you some good.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I am well aware of the limitations of linear logic, and it is by no means the only thing I "believe in". I am just aware of its important strengths and contributions, however, and will not blindly believe something devoid of any logic or evidence.
> 
> Go take a Critical Thinking class. It will do you some good.


That's not the point I was trying to make. See, you can't read between the lines. We come from two different backgrounds of Science. And I don't know about the proof's backgrounds. I can't even remember who said any of that. I wish I could. Until then, you won't believe me. But that's til then.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> That's not the point I was trying to make. See, you can't read between the lines.



The typical debate tactic of the fundamentalist-literalist: accuse your opponent of "ignorance" and "fear of the truth". Meanwhile, be sure to be as vague and non-descript as possible.



> We come from two different backgrounds of Science.



Wrong. The scientific process is the scientific process, regardless of what field it is applied to. Nothing will change that.

Most, if not all, of the "science" you've been supporting isn't even superficial pop-science. Its pseudo-science. Its pretty words that use a lot of scientific rhetoric and terminology, and put on the image of being "objective" and "scientifical". But, at the end of the day, they all lack the empiricism of the scientific process to back up their claims: no injunction, no datum, and no validation.

Sorry, it'll take more than that to fool the likes of me.



> And I don't know about the proof's backgrounds. I can't even remember who said any of that. I wish I could. Until then, you won't believe me. But that's til then.



If you don't know the background or basis of this "evidence", then you have _absolutely no reason_ to believe it is reliable whatsoever. Scientific, my ****.


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

As an athiest, I really feel that my opinion on this topic would be less than welcome, so I have been keeping a low profile.

Seeing ShoalinWolf's arguments about the infallibility of the bible as the 'Literal History' of the world according to God ... and then seeing this article about the 'Bible Proofreaders' was an interesting juxtaposition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5015320/

I have no doubt that ShoalinWolf will be able to explain this as a devine calling, and God's hand working through these folks in Georgia to guarantee the infallibility of God's words.

Just remember ... "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery"

<chuckle>

Mike


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

Heh. 

Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith (no pun intended) in most conventional translations of the Bible.

How some of the Greek gets transmuted into "churchy" English is beyond me --- this is most apparent in the Pauline letters. It would really help if modern-day Christians knew what words like psychic, pneumatic, hylic, gnosis, telios, pistis, sophia, aeon, and archon all _really_ meant.

Might even inspire some of them to read some Plato. Hee.


----------



## Cruentus (May 20, 2004)

Heretic,

I have seen the light now, I think. I have read your posts and looked more into it. I just can't see how christianity could be valid. There is just no proof for any of it. I am rethinking all of my beliefs now.

The only problem is, how am I going to tell my fiancee' that I won't marry in a Catholic church?


----------



## qizmoduis (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> That's not the point I was trying to make. See, you can't read between the lines. We come from two different backgrounds of Science. And I don't know about the proof's backgrounds. I can't even remember who said any of that. I wish I could. Until then, you won't believe me. But that's til then.



Read between the lines? Why in the world would you require anyone attempting to understand and reply to your posts to infer meaning beyond what you actually wrote?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Clear thinking and clear expression are paramount in written conversation.  If something isn't written, it isn't there and can't be responded to.  On any other path lies confusion and madness.

Also, on the subject of Joshua's longest day:  This myth appears nowhere else in any writings or histories of any other culture.  It only exists in the bible.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Heretic,
> 
> I have seen the light now, I think. I have read your posts and looked more into it. I just can't see how christianity could be valid. There is just no proof for any of it. I am rethinking all of my beliefs now.
> 
> The only problem is, how am I going to tell my fiancee' that I won't marry in a Catholic church?



I'm sure that post was constructed very tongue-in-cheek.   

Regardless, a point I feel should be addressed is the notion that conventional Christianity is not "valid". I never claimed this: I believe, in fact, it is for the most part a very good religion and means of moralization.

At the same time, however, I see the 'Mythical Prefigurement' argument with as much regard as 'Diabolical Mimicry' --- both views are essentially ethnocentric/sociocentric in nature, and are simply attempts to discredit empirical evidence that contradicts one's beliefs. I cannot, in good faith (no pun intended), regard such notions as being supported by either logic or good evidence.

If I supported 'Mythical Prefigurement', I'd also have to support the type of claims that the Devil "created" the fossil record to fool Creationists centuries later --- both are attempts to "prove" one's own religion (which is assumed to be historically and factually accurate at the expense of all others) by discrediting well-documented evidence.



> Read between the lines? Why in the world would you require anyone attempting to understand and reply to your posts to infer meaning beyond what you actually wrote? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clear thinking and clear expression are paramount in written conversation. If something isn't written, it isn't there and can't be responded to. On any other path lies confusion and madness.



Yes, very interesting request coming from a literalist, no?? 



> Also, on the subject of Joshua's longest day: This myth appears nowhere else in any writings or histories of any other culture. It only exists in the bible.



I'm inclined to agree with this, as well. I've studied a bit of mythology myself, and have come across no other similar accounts in other religious literature. And, even supposing it is found in other religious accounts, that doesn't make it historically or empirically true --- many religions refer to a "world flood", and scientists are virtually unanimous that there is practically no evidence for anything but local floods (if even that).

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Hey, what about the fact that scientists have found fish bones and large fish bones at that at the top of mountains. THey were embedded in the top. And they predated them back a long time. Like thousands of years ago. Of course, your going to say that eagles and such might have dropped the bones. But why are the bones intact at the top of the mountain?

:asian:

P.S. It's a matter of Faith to believe that God is real and to believe in being a Christian. It's a sad day when someone decides to not believe in God for the rest of their life. The only question is, are you willing to take the chance of being on the side bent for other than Heaven just to prove that you were right? Just a question.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Hey, what about the fact that scientists have found fish bones and large fish bones at that at the top of mountains. THey were embedded in the top. And they predated them back a long time. Like thousands of years ago.



Well, how about you back up this "fact" with more than your word??   

The burden of proof is on you. Cite some primary sources.



> Of course, your going to say that eagles and such might have dropped the bones.



My guess is because, assuming this is even true, whoever did the "observing" isn't a very competent scientist (and I'm probably being very generous here). Claims like this show up in the tabloids from time to time, too. If you want anyone to believe you, back up your claims with sources.



> P.S. It's a matter of Faith to believe that God is real and to believe in being a Christian.



Not always "faith" or "intuition" (I differentiate between these two, by the way). Some can draw on inward experiences.

Of course, this depends on what you mean by "God", once again.



> It's a sad day when someone decides to not believe in God for the rest of their life. The only question is, are you willing to take the chance of being on the side bent for other than Heaven just to prove that you were right? Just a question.



More preaching. You've been acting very trollish as of late, ShaolinWolf.   

The argument you are using sounds vaguely familiar to Pascal's "The Wager" --- and it was equally dubious, too. The entire basis for the argument is based on so many unproven assumptions (I can list them off if you like) that its practically beyond repute.

Laterz.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Hey, what about the fact that scientists have found fish bones and large fish bones at that at the top of mountains. THey were embedded in the top. And they predated them back a long time. Like thousands of years ago. Of course, your going to say that eagles and such might have dropped the bones. But why are the bones intact at the top of the mountain?
> 
> :asian:
> 
> P.S. It's a matter of Faith to believe that God is real and to believe in being a Christian. It's a sad day when someone decides to not believe in God for the rest of their life. The only question is, are you willing to take the chance of being on the side bent for other than Heaven just to prove that you were right? Just a question.




Mountains are formed as the plates of the crust of the earth collide. As the collide usually one goes up and becomes a mountain and he other one goes down to be melted and gound up and also to help push up the other one.

These place could have had lakes or seas on them thousands of years ago. Then the earth or ground or plates move and now you have evidence of water creatures in the mountains. Earth Science 101.

 :asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

yes, but what about the rocky's Mt. Mckinley?(YES, I'll get evidence.)


----------



## Nightingale (May 20, 2004)

um...

ok.

Here's the explanation for the fish bones.  I've dug them up myself, in Wyoming.  They date from over 80 million years ago, not "a few thousand". 

Basically, what we know as the rocky mountains used to be sea floor.  About 70-50 million years ago, the land began an uplift and began to raise in elevation (I'm not getting into the hows and whys of plate tectonics here, you can google it if you want to know how it works).  What used to be sea floor now became a flat marsh.  This is where the dinosaurs lived around 65 million years ago.  In this formation in Wyoming, you can find triceratops, duckbill, and tyrannosaurus, mostly.

35 million years ago, the land went through another period of uplift, forming the Rocky Mountains.

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1999/edd/colorado.htm


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

oh yeah, and the earth is 1 billion years old. Well, from what's been seen lately, scientists are thinking otherwise. How do we know it's actually 50-70 million or older? Carbon Dating? Heh. A good question is were they there back then? And how can we trust those scientists to say it's actually 35 million yrs, 8 months, 7 days, 20 hrs, 15 minutes, and 26 seconds old? And what about the fact that most historical records only date back to the latest of 5,000 B.C. or later? Well, before then, we were just a bunch of stupid apes, right?

:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> yes, but what about the rocky's Mt. Mckinley?(YES, I'll get evidence.)




Nightingale beat me to the follow-up. Thank You Nightingale.

Wolf,

I do not understand your point. Fish bones and fossils of such on the mountain tops is a miracle? Yet, you saw you have investigated, and you did not understand the tectonic plates of the earth. I would ave assumed you had researched the evidence to help argue its' invalidity via faith.

Mind you, I have no problem with you having faith. No matter what it is in or history. It is not my responsibility to watch over you, nor to judge you right or wrong. So this is not a personal attack on you nor is an attack on your faith. It is just an explanation of how fossils get on top of mountains.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Mountains are formed as the plates of the crust of the earth collide. As the collide usually one goes up and becomes a mountain and he other one goes down to be melted and gound up and also to help push up the other one.
> 
> These place could have had lakes or seas on them thousands of years ago. Then the earth or ground or plates move and now you have evidence of water creatures in the mountains. Earth Science 101.



Thanks for the Geology lesson, Rich. Very informative.  :asian: 



> Here's the explanation for the fish bones. I've dug them up myself, in Wyoming. They date from over 80 million years ago, not "a few thousand".
> 
> Basically, what we know as the rocky mountains used to be sea floor. About 70-50 million years ago, the land began an uplift and began to raise in elevation (I'm not getting into the hows and whys of plate tectonics here, you can google it if you want to know how it works). What used to be sea floor now became a flat marsh. This is where the dinosaurs lived around 65 million years ago. In this formation in Wyoming, you can find triceratops, duckbill, and tyrannosaurus, mostly.
> 
> 35 million years ago, the land went through another period of uplift, forming the Rocky Mountains.



Thanks for the link, Nightingale. Also quite informative.  :asian: 



> oh yeah, and the earth is 1 billion years old. Well, from what's been seen lately, scientists are thinking otherwise.



Prove it. Cite some sources.

From the last count that I heard, the material universe is measured to be between 7 to 9 billion years old (juxtaposed to the earlier 15 billion year estimate). This was supposedly when the Big Bang occurred.

As for the date of the Earth itself, I'm not so sure on that one.



> How do we know it's actually 50-70 million or older? Carbon Dating?



Yes, among other things. There are actually a number of methods scientists use to date objects, depending on the circumstance.



> A good question is were they there back then? And how can we trust those scientists to say it's actually 35 million yrs, 8 months, 7 days, 20 hrs, 15 minutes, and 26 seconds old?



This is just silly, desperate logic and borders on nihilism.

You see, there is a principle in the scientific method called "falsifiability". Meaning, whenever a theorist presents his idea, it is subject to verification from a panel of peers (in this instance, other scientists). Many hypotheses have been confirmed or rejected on the basis of this principle.

This also means that all those "mean ol' theories" that scientists talk about are not just ideas floating in the air devoid of any grounding in evidence or validation --- unless, of course, you subscribe to the "evil conspiracy of heathen scientists" garbage that you implied before.



> And what about the fact that most historical records only date back to the latest of 5,000 B.C. or later?



That's not quite true, I don't believe. There are Sumerian records, if I recall correctly, that go back well over 10,000 years.



> Well, before then, we were just a bunch of stupid apes, right?



Nope. Cro-Magnon Man thrived as early as 50,000 to 20,000 years ago. Modern Man is more recent (within 10,000 years).

Laterz.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

Absolute literal interpretation of the Bible is mostly a Xtian concept. The majority of Jewish Biblical scholar have no problems reconciling the ages. The days in Genesis are assumed to be of unknown length. The only time they are taken as 24 hour days, is when our calendar is concerned. Orthodox Jewish belief also states that although G-d dictated the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, He also gave a large body of Oral Law to explain the text. That Oral Law was later written down in the Mishna, part of the Talmud.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Absolute literal interpretation of the Bible is mostly a Xtian concept. The majority of Jewish Biblical scholar have no problems reconciling the ages.



Well, I'd say most people in general have no problems reconciling with the ages, either --- the extreme literalist-fundamentalists are typically a minority of the total Christian population, IMO.



> The days in Genesis are assumed to be of unknown length. The only time they are taken as 24 hour days, is when our calendar is concerned.



This does help matters for the believer, but it only addresses the supposed date of the creation of the Earth --- and not the particulars through which this was said to occur.



> Orthodox Jewish belief also states that although G-d dictated the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, He also gave a large body of Oral Law to explain the text. That Oral Law was later written down in the Mishna, part of the Talmud.



Interesting. Does this "oral tradition" have any particular relationship to disciplines like Kabbalah??


----------



## Cruentus (May 20, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Heretic,
> 
> I have seen the light now, I think. I have read your posts and looked more into it. I just can't see how christianity could be valid. There is just no proof for any of it. I am rethinking all of my beliefs now.
> 
> The only problem is, how am I going to tell my fiancee' that I won't marry in a Catholic church?



Heh. I am totally kidding, here, obviously. I was just wondering if that was what you were looking for. You seem at times to be on a mission to prove how wrong Christianity is, and I wasn't sure of your motive. I am glad that you clairified that your not trying to prove christianity invalid.   

Anyways, here are a couple of things.

*1.Some things are a matter of faith, and some things are a matter of evidence. * I agree, but we run into kind of a dichotomy. You obviously know the difference between idealism and materialism. Well, the problem with materialism is that if you need material evidence before you believe anything, then you wont believe anything. Some people claim to be O.K. with that. So, if you were to ask me for material evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a human being, sorry, I cant provide that to date.

So, it must mean its not true? Well, the problem isnt with the Jesus story; its really with any ancient history. We have very little material evidence to prove that anything happened THE WAY we believe it happened. For example, we know that the Civil war happened. But, do we know with material evidence WHY it really happened beyond reasonable doubt? No, we dont. We only have theories, which may be based off of material evidence, but our ideals play a role when deciding which theory to believe. Now, the Civil war was only 140 years or so ago, yet there has been a ton of scholarly work done to try to decipher the whys and "hows" of the Civil war; if material evidence could solve all the puzzles, then there wouldnt be anything to theorize on. 

We run into this problem of material evidence even more so the further back into history we go. Do we know that the city of Troy even existed, for example? There is very little material evidence to support that it did other then through Homers writings, meaning that there is a certain amount of idealism involved in accepting its existence beyond the stories. Since this seems to be the case, if my ideals were as such where I refused to accept the existance of Troy, then I could argue quite logically and with my material evidence (which would also be lacking) that Troy never existed. This is why there are a lot of self asserted geniuses with PhD's who come up with all kinds of theories with evidence regarding historical events; the lack of material evidence allows people to use their ideals to come up with just about anything. However, this doesnt mean that anything that they come up with really happened that way. 

All these problems exist when you apply it to the Jesus story. We know, just to throw out an example, that there was more then one person who claimed to be a messiah (and who was crucified for it) around the time of Jesus, leaving the possibility that one of those people could have been the Jesus from the Bible story. However, do we have material evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not any one of those people were Jesus? No; however, that doesnt discount the possibility. The lack of material evidence will allow anyone to claim anything on the story, but that doesnt make what he or she claims true.

All ancient history requires a level of idealism because there will never be enough material evidence to prove anything in history beyond reasonable doubt. Materialism really can only apply to science and mathematics, not history. Some people laugh it off when Christian people try to use science to help validate some of their beliefs (and sometimes I laugh at this too). Well, I laugh even harder when non-Christians try to apply scientific and mathematical ways of thinking to history and theology to validate their disbelief.

*2. Dealing with idealism?* Whenever there is a lack of material evidence, more is left up to our ideals and beliefs to decide what is true for us. I am realist enough to believe that someone can think they can fly all they want, but if they jump out the window, the splat on the ground below will prove what is true. But, unfortunately, that splat is the material evidence needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dude cannot fly. And, even after the splat, some idiot will argue that, he could have flown if he wanted to! 

The mind is a wonderful, and terrible thing. I dont think that peoples subconscious are telling them what to do per say, but the subconscious plays a role. The fact of the matter is that people will believe what they want to believe, true or not. If you dont buy Christianity, fine. If you dont believe that Jesus existed as a human being, then thats your belief. But that is because you chose to look at the evidence both for and against the Jesus story, and you chose to believe what you do. And, everything that you come across, once youve decided what your belief is, can be used to support your belief. And, if Jesus came down right now, sat in front of you, and told you that you were wrong, would your Ego (Freudian use of the word) allow you to believe it then? 

I am not comparing you to these people, but, how many murderers, serial killers, and criminals believe that theyve done nothing wrong? As a Catholic, I wonder how many people who are in hell believe that they dont deserve to be there? Hell, how many clinically depressed people believe at times that they've done nothing right? Ill bet the answer to these is lots.

The thing is, if you need to believe that somehow your material and ideal evidence to support your belief is somehow going to imperially prove your stance over others who disagree with you, this will never happened, except in your own mind, and the minds of those who may agree with you. This goes for everyone, Christian or not.

So, how to deal with this? Well I cant answer this for everyone, only for myself. I can say, though, that if you want to have an open dialog on this topic without the conversation turning sour, then you need to realize that your evidence to support your belief in the material sense is not better then someone elses, because there is not enough material evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt really anything in regards to religions. Even if, for arguments sake, you have more evidence to support your belief, that doesnt make your belief true beyond reasonable doubt.

How do I deal with this dichotomy in regards to my own beliefs? I try to keep an open mind, and use logic to prove my stance. That logic is based on the evidence/premises that I accept, which I try to look at separately in as unbiased a fashion as I can. From there, I formulate what I believe. And that, my friend, is the best anyone can do.

So, if you think that this is all poppycock still, then go read something by Nietzsche and Freud, or by one of their successors on existentialism and the structural model of Id, Ego, and Superego, and go tell all them that they are poppycock.  

*3. Logic.errr* I like logic, but it is limited. The first thing that one must realize regarding logic is that the variables must be agreed upon. I can logically prove the existence of God. I can logically prove the Jesus story. However, we will have to agree on all the variables for this to occur, which are left to ideals. You cant say that someones beliefs are illogical unless you understand the variables they are using to know if there is logical fallacy in what they are saying. If they are not being illogical, then you cant blame them for not being logical, obviously. You may disagree with them, but that means that you are either being illogical in your disagreement, or what you actually disagree with is the variables rather then the arguement.

So, what are the variables? When discussing religion, or ancient history for that matter, the variables are not purely material. What you chose to believe, and how you chose to interpret the material evidence (idealism) for your variables will determine the outcome of your logic. So, even with logic, we are back to, what do you chose to believe?

* 4. Truth * There is a lot of wisdom in the old saying, There is you opinion, my opinion, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Really, you have your truth, others have theirs, and then there is what is actually true. You may never know what is actually true, because the "actual truth" is subject to interpretation through "your truth. This doesnt mean that actual truth doesnt exist, but it does mean that it will be subject to interpretation through your eyes, which may or may not accept what it sees. So even in truth, it often comes down to "what do you chose to believe is true?"

* 5. Mythical Prefigurement * If there is a God, then there is an "actual truth" to his story. So, whatever matches or alludes to this actual truth will also be "actually true". If I believe in my Catholic perception of God, then I believe that that my way coincides the most with what is actually true. Anything that alludes to what I believe to be true in what I determine to be sound, regardless of where it comes from, will support what I believe. I dont have to believe that everyone else is wrong to believe that my way is the most true. I may believe that some other ways are almost right, or that some are part right and part wrong, or that some are way off base. I can also accept the idea that I may be the one who is wrong to some degree. Of course the standard that I am going to use is my accepted belief. This is true with anyone. My opinion is what is going to be the most right to me.

This does not have to be elitism by any stretch. Elitism is believing you are better then someone else. Believing you are right isnt the same as believing you are better then others. This isnt ethnocentric, for it has nothing to do with race. I am not even of Jewish/middle eastern heritage. I dont believe that one culture is better then another. I just accept an idea over other ideas. Just like you, and just like everyone else. Naturally people view their beliefs as being the most correct, at least for them and compared to everyone else, otherwise they wouldnt have them. 

A side note on this subject; I dont think it is fair that you assume that if another religion became more dominant in my culture, that I would pick that one over what I have picked. This is not logical, first of all, in the sense that I chose Catholicism over Protestant religions that are dominant in my community and culture, and even upon making my choice, I dont fit the description of your regular obedient Catholic. What youve assessed assumes that I illogically go with the masses, which is a poor assumption to make. You may be biased to think that is how all Christians become Christians, but you have really no idea the process involved that developed my idealistic evidence and logical arguments behind why I chose my religion.

*Conclusion:* People are going to believe what they want. You are no better then anybody else in that regards. Your evidence, because none of it is empirical, is really no "better" emperically then anything else that is out there either. You may have more evidence then someone else, or you may even out argue someone, but that doesnt make you better or correct. It just makes you the winner of that argument, or the guy with more evidence then the other guy. Now, I dont know if your objective is to discuss, to argue, or whatever. But I do know that with whatever youre trying to do, understand that you are coming from your own beliefs and perspectives ultimately.

Paul

P.S. One favorwhen you quote me and respond, can you please attribute it to my name if you have other peoples quotes in the same post? I dont want to be confused with Shaolinwolf when people read your response.


----------



## qizmoduis (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Hey, what about the fact that scientists have found fish bones and large fish bones at that at the top of mountains. THey were embedded in the top. And they predated them back a long time. Like thousands of years ago. Of course, your going to say that eagles and such might have dropped the bones. But why are the bones intact at the top of the mountain?
> 
> :asian:
> 
> P.S. It's a matter of Faith to believe that God is real and to believe in being a Christian. It's a sad day when someone decides to not believe in God for the rest of their life. The only question is, are you willing to take the chance of being on the side bent for other than Heaven just to prove that you were right? Just a question.



Do some research on how mountains are constructed.  Oh, and regarding Mt. Mckinley, it's in Alaska, not the Rockies.  It's also known as Denali, and is the highest peak in North America.  In fact, measured base to summit, it's taller than Mt. Everest in the Himlayas.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Ummm, the Rockies extend all the way up into Alaska...


----------



## Nightingale (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ummm, the Rockies extend all the way up into Alaska...



ummm... no.  Mt. McKinley is in the ALASKA range.  The Rockies extend through the middle of the continent, into Canada's province of Alberta, over the northern end of Alaska, and down south to New Mexico.  McKinley is in a different area.

http://www.denalinationalpark.com/about.html
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/province/rockymtn.html


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Heh. I am totally kidding, here, obviously. I was just wondering if that was what you were looking for. You seem at times to be on a mission to prove how wrong Christianity is, and I wasn't sure of your motive. I am glad that you clairified that your not trying to prove christianity invalid.



Heh. Oh, I don't really think anything is "invalid" per se....  



> 1.Some things are a matter of faith, and some things are a matter of evidence. I agree, but we run into kind of a dichotomy. You obviously know the difference between idealism and materialism. Well, the problem with materialism is that if you need material evidence before you believe anything, then you wont believe anything. Some people claim to be O.K. with that. So, if you were to ask me for material evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a human being, sorry, I cant provide that to date.



It isn't really a problem for me, as I am not a materialist. Nor is the scientific method, strictly speaking, materialistically-oriented (although some may like to think so). We use "non-material" evidence and proofs all the time --- just look at the advanced and complex "mental" evidence found in the likes of mathematics and physics. Similar evidence is also relied upon in sociology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and so on --- all of these fields are sciences and use the scientific method as a basis for their truth-claims. I refer you to the Kuhnian formula for the scientific method that I posted in the Evolution thread (injunction, datum, and validation).

I personally hold the materialistic or reductionistic position to be unworkable in the end. But, that's just me.



> So, it must mean its not true?



No, of course not. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. We don't currently have evidence of the existence of parallel universes --- that doesn't completely exclude the possibility.

At the same time, however, there are certain situations in which there is an _overwhelming_ lack of evidence when we should have, well, _something_. Take, for example, a hypothetical claim that Australian Pygmies had, at one time, industrial technology --- now, there is clearly _no evidence_ for this claim. Which isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself. The problem, per se, is that we should have _some_ evidence left behind that the Pygmies used industrial technology --- a factory, or car, or gun, or something. But, instead, we are left with nothing --- which points to (although does not "prove) certain conclusions.

I believe the case of the historical Jesus is a similar situation. I believe there _should_ be evidence of some kind for his existence and, given everything else we know concerning Christianity at the time, I feel this is very damaging to the hisoricist position.



> So, it must mean its not true? Well, the problem isnt with the Jesus story; its really with any ancient history. We have very little material evidence to prove that anything happened THE WAY we believe it happened. For example, we know that the Civil war happened. But, do we know with material evidence WHY it really happened beyond reasonable doubt? No, we dont. We only have theories, which may be based off of material evidence, but our ideals play a role when deciding which theory to believe. Now, the Civil war was only 140 years or so ago, yet there has been a ton of scholarly work done to try to decipher the whys and "hows" of the Civil war; if material evidence could solve all the puzzles, then there wouldnt be anything to theorize on.



Actually... yeah, we do. Of course, this again depends on a matter of definition and what you mean by "reasonable doubt".

Regardless, we have a reasonably good idea as to exactly _what_ happened during the Civil War. Now, there may be scores of different interpretations as to the "whys" and "meanings" of those historical events (not all of which are equally valid), but the events themselves are largely beyond question.

Also, be careful how you're tossing around the word "theories" --- if something truly is a theory, in the scientific sense of the word, than that says tons in regards to its reliability and believability.



> We run into this problem of material evidence even more so the further back into history we go. Do we know that the city of Troy even existed, for example? There is very little material evidence to support that it did other then through Homers writings, meaning that there is a certain amount of idealism involved in accepting its existence beyond the stories. Since this seems to be the case, if my ideals were as such where I refused to accept the existance of Troy, then I could argue quite logically and with my material evidence (which would also be lacking) that Troy never existed. This is why there are a lot of self asserted geniuses with PhD's who come up with all kinds of theories with evidence regarding historical events; the lack of material evidence allows people to use their ideals to come up with just about anything. However, this doesnt mean that anything that they come up with really happened that way.



Indeed. This is why it is the responsibility of the critical mind to wade through ALL the available evidence, both material and non-material (this includes logical proofs, among other things), and come to his/her own conclusion. Remember also the circumstance I cited above, in which there are times when the absolute lack of evidence can indeed point to incredulity.

In the specific case of Troy, I would say that its mentioning anywhere outside of Homer's writings (haven't done the research myself, so I don't know) would be a fairly good indication it probably didn't exist. One would expect a city that big to either have some kind of material remains, or be mentioned in the histories of surrounding nations --- but, if there truly is nothing outside of Homer, this points to incredulity as the only conclusion.



> All these problems exist when you apply it to the Jesus story. We know, just to throw out an example, that there was more then one person who claimed to be a messiah (and who was crucified for it) around the time of Jesus, leaving the possibility that one of those people could have been the Jesus from the Bible story.



Correction: One of those individuals could have _inspired_ or _influenced_ the creation of the Jesus from the Gospel story. A purely "Gospel Jesus" is clearly mythical and non-historical.

This, again, is where we run into problems of context and definition. What exactly do we _mean_ by "historical Jesus"?? A human the Christian character could have been based on?? Or, an individual that literally lived out the life described in the Gospels??



> However, do we have material evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not any one of those people were Jesus? No; however, that doesnt discount the possibility. The lack of material evidence will allow anyone to claim anything on the story, but that doesnt make what he or she claims true.



I would agree with this.



> All ancient history requires a level of idealism because there will never be enough material evidence to prove anything in history beyond reasonable doubt. Materialism really can only apply to science and mathematics, not history.



I'm afraid you're a little confused here, Paul.

I would say all history requires a certain degree of _hermeneutics_ or _interpretation_. I don't know if I would personally call that 'idealism'. 

And, in any event, there _is_ enough material evidence to prove certain things beyond reasonable doubt (unless you're a conspiracy nutso) --- we know, for example, that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilks Boothe. The "whys" and "meanings" to that historical event may be debatable (which doesn't mean every interpretation is equally valid), but the event itself is not.

Sometimes, however, the issue is a little gray --- but that is no reason to retreat into the abyss of nihilism. It just means you have to work a little harder to ascertain what exactly happened (with the qualifier being that some things we will just never know).



> Some people laugh it off when Christian people try to use science to help validate some of their beliefs (and sometimes I laugh at this too). Well, I laugh even harder when non-Christians try to apply scientific and mathematical ways of thinking to history and theology to validate their disbelief.



Laugh all you want, sometimes such approaches have weight. It does depends on the specific circumstance, though.

Sometimes material evidence can disprove earlier beliefs we held, such as the notion of geo-centrism and the world being flat. Sometimes, material evidence is only indicative (and not actually "proving" anything). Sometimes, a lack of material evidence in extreme circumstances must cause us to regard certain notions with incredulity. It all depends on what's being discussed and the total context of the issue.



> The mind is a wonderful, and terrible thing. I dont think that peoples subconscious are telling them what to do per say, but the subconscious plays a role. The fact of the matter is that people will believe what they want to believe, true or not.



And some people change their beliefs.



> If you dont buy Christianity, fine. If you dont believe that Jesus existed as a human being, then thats your belief. But that is because you chose to look at the evidence both for and against the Jesus story, and you chose to believe what you do. And, everything that you come across, once youve decided what your belief is, can be used to support your belief. And, if Jesus came down right now, sat in front of you, and told you that you were wrong, would your Ego (Freudian use of the word) allow you to believe it then?



Perhaps. Perhaps not. I can't really comment with absolute certainty my behavior in hypothetical situations.

It would depend on the circumstance, though. I certainly wouldn't believe someone just because they _told_ me they were Jesus. I would still require some kind of proof (whether material or not).



> I am not comparing you to these people, but, how many murderers, serial killers, and criminals believe that theyve done nothing wrong? As a Catholic, I wonder how many people who are in hell believe that they dont deserve to be there? Hell, how many clinically depressed people believe at times that they've done nothing right? Ill bet the answer to these is lots.



This is why not all interpretive (subjective) accounts are equally valid or truthful.



> The thing is, if you need to believe that somehow your material and ideal evidence to support your belief is somehow going to imperially prove your stance over others who disagree with you, this will never happened, except in your own mind, and the minds of those who may agree with you. This goes for everyone, Christian or not.



True as that may be, it does not change the fact that not all positions are equally valid --- and no amount of rationalizing will change that. You seem to be implying that just because somebody disagrees with you, that the question is "in the air", which is not necessarily true. 

Yet again, its all a matter of evidence --- not explaining away said evidence.



> So, how to deal with this? Well I cant answer this for everyone, only for myself. I can say, though, that if you want to have an open dialog on this topic without the conversation turning sour, then you need to realize that your evidence to support your belief in the material sense is not better then someone elses, because there is not enough material evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt really anything in regards to religions. Even if, for arguments sake, you have more evidence to support your belief, that doesnt make your belief true beyond reasonable doubt.



It may. Or it may not. Again, it depends on the circumstance.

Once again, it all comes down to a matter of _evidence_. This evidence can be material, and it can be mental, and it can even be transmental --- but that does not change the fact that evidence is evidence.

And be careful with this "true beyond a reasonable doubt" angle. That is not something claimed by science, or by me. All that is claimed is that "based on all the available evidence, this is the best explanation that we currently have". Sometimes, the evidence is so overwhelming that said explanation becomes a full-blown theory. And, sometimes it does not.



> How do I deal with this dichotomy in regards to my own beliefs? I try to keep an open mind, and use logic to prove my stance. That logic is based on the evidence/premises that I accept, which I try to look at separately in as unbiased a fashion as I can. From there, I formulate what I believe. And that, my friend, is the best anyone can do.



Yes, and you need to understand that that doesn't magically exclude your logic and "evidence" of criticism by others. This seems to be the conclusion you were going for, and its not a conclusion that is very workable in any sense.



> So, if you think that this is all poppycock still, then go read something by Nietzsche and Freud, or by one of their successors on existentialism and the structural model of Id, Ego, and Superego, and go tell all them that they are poppycock.



Not so much poppycock, but extremely partial. Freud and Nietzsche were both brilliant in some of the insights they disclosed, but they still only focused on a very limited piece of the human experience --- and, even then, many of the particulars and specifics they highlighted have been disproved by more contemporary and updated research.



> 3. Logic.errr I like logic, but it is limited.



Of course it is. That's why we find translogical truths and practices in the world's many wisdom traditions. This is no reason, however, to devolve into prerational narcissism...



> The first thing that one must realize regarding logic is that the variables must be agreed upon. I can logically prove the existence of God. I can logically prove the Jesus story. However, we will have to agree on all the variables for this to occur, which are left to ideals.



Ummm.... sorry, but not quite.

A logical proof is false/illogical if the premise(s) is also false/illogical. That is very basic stuff, and one of the first things you learn in Critical Thinking & Analysis. No amount of rationalizing will change this, without falling into prerational narcissism.



> You cant say that someones beliefs are illogical unless you understand the variables they are using to know if there is logical fallacy in what they are saying. If they are not being illogical, then you cant blame them for not being logical, obviously. You may disagree with them, but that means that you are either being illogical in your disagreement, or what you actually disagree with is the variables rather then the arguement.



Nope. If a premise is illogical, then the conclusion is illogical.

And, even if something is "logical", this does not necessarily make it true.



> So, what are the variables? When discussing religion, or ancient history for that matter, the variables are not purely material. What you chose to believe, and how you chose to interpret the material evidence (idealism) for your variables will determine the outcome of your logic. So, even with logic, we are back to, what do you chose to believe?



Not really, although some may like to think so.

If we are discussing pure logic (and not empirical truth), then there are certain rules and dictums that are followed. No amount of belief or wishful thinking will change this. I will give an example:

1) All cats are grey. Bob is a cat. Bob is grey.
2) Bob is grey. Bob is a cat. All cats are grey.

Situation 1 follows sound logic, as it is supported by logical (although not truthful) premises. Situation 2 is not logical or truthful. You may believe or wish Situation 1 is logical all you want, but that doesn't change the simple fact it has no sound logical proof. This is very, very basic stuff.



> 4. Truth There is a lot of wisdom in the old saying, There is you opinion, my opinion, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.



A very humorous saying, considering it implies that the saying itself is true.   



> Really, you have your truth, others have theirs, and then there is what is actually true. You may never know what is actually true, because the "actual truth" is subject to interpretation through "your truth. This doesnt mean that actual truth doesnt exist, but it does mean that it will be subject to interpretation through your eyes, which may or may not accept what it sees. So even in truth, it often comes down to "what do you chose to believe is true?"



Nah, sorry.

We know relative truths _all the time_. Relative truths are context-dependent. That means: "Given this set of circumstances, this is true." Something else may not be true within that same set of circumstances (contrary to what certain individuals like to claim). Colombus sailed to North America in 1492 --- now that is a relative _truth_, because it is true given a certain context and set of circumstances (temporal circumstances, spatial circumstances, historical circumstances, cultural circumstances, etc). If I claimed Colombus did not sail to North America in 1492 (while using the same context in mind), that would be a relative _falsehood_.

So, once again, it comes down to _evidence_. The proper interpretation of said evidence, however, does depend on seeing the context in which it exists.



> If there is a God, then there is an "actual truth" to his story.



Nope. Sorry, again.

Just because there is a "God", it does not necessarily follow that Mythical Prefigurement is true. That would be like saying that the existence of "God" proves the Flood really happened --- when it just may be that the Flood was a story some madman cooked up completely independent of any influence on the part of God. The same with Mythical Prefigurement.

To prove Mythical Prefigurement, you have to: 1) prove "God" exists, and 2) prove that "God" was responsible for Mythical Prefigurement.



> So, whatever matches or alludes to this actual truth will also be "actually true". If I believe in my Catholic perception of God, then I believe that that my way coincides the most with what is actually true. Anything that alludes to what I believe to be true in what I determine to be sound, regardless of where it comes from, will support what I believe. I dont have to believe that everyone else is wrong to believe that my way is the most true. I may believe that some other ways are almost right, or that some are part right and part wrong, or that some are way off base. I can also accept the idea that I may be the one who is wrong to some degree. Of course the standard that I am going to use is my accepted belief. This is true with anyone. My opinion is what is going to be the most right to me.
> 
> This does not have to be elitism by any stretch. Elitism is believing you are better then someone else. Believing you are right isnt the same as believing you are better then others. This isnt ethnocentric, for it has nothing to do with race. I am not even of Jewish/middle eastern heritage. I dont believe that one culture is better then another. I just accept an idea over other ideas. Just like you, and just like everyone else. Naturally people view their beliefs as being the most correct, at least for them and compared to everyone else, otherwise they wouldnt have them.



Actually, it _is_ elitism. 

Saying everyone is free to believe what they want to believe does not change the fact that the particular belief you are referring to (Mythical Prefigurement) is an ethnocentric, elitist belief. The logical argument you provided above could just as easily be used by the Neo-Nazi to support his beliefs, as well. Because, after all, its "right for him". True as that may be, it doesn't change the fact his beliefs are ethnocentric, bigoted, and racist.

Should I even go into the fact that your "relativist" argument above is inherently contradictory and hypocritical?? After all, all beliefs are true for the individual... except for the belief that all beliefs are true for the individual, which is obviously the ultimate truth, right?? No position is "better" than another... except for the one that says this is so. Ciruclar, circular, circular. That's why logic is so important, Paul.

And, in regards to Mythical Prefigurement, it is elitism through and through. It claims all religions are historically false and accurate but my own --- and, furthermore, they exist for the sole purpose of "proving" the rightness of my own. That is cultural arrogance at its worst.



> A side note on this subject; I dont think it is fair that you assume that if another religion became more dominant in my culture, that I would pick that one over what I have picked. This is not logical, first of all, in the sense that I chose Catholicism over Protestant religions that are dominant in my community and culture, and even upon making my choice, I dont fit the description of your regular obedient Catholic. What youve assessed assumes that I illogically go with the masses, which is a poor assumption to make. You may be biased to think that is how all Christians become Christians, but you have really no idea the process involved that developed my idealistic evidence and logical arguments behind why I chose my religion.



Fair enough, but that really wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Manicheism came after Christianity. Manicheism has a savior god (Manes) who possessed many of the features in common with both the Christian Jesus and the Pagan Osiris-Dionysus. If Manicheism had by historical chance managed to become the dominant religion of the West, we would no doubt be hearing some of its modern adherents use this fallacious 'Mythical Prefigurement' to explain how the story of Jesus "points to" or "prefigures" the coming of Manes. 

In other words, they would be using _exactly_ the same logic, rhetoric, and reasoning that you have been --- and it would have been as equally dubious. It doesn't change the fact that the Manichean would have been subscribing to an ethnocentric belief, one that sees his religion's truthfulness to the exclusion of all other and, what's worse, that all those "false religions" exist to point to the Manichean one. How is that not only illogical, but ethnocentric??



> Conclusion: People are going to believe what they want. You are no better then anybody else in that regards.



I never claimed I was.



> Your evidence, because none of it is empirical, is really no "better" emperically then anything else that is out there either. You may have more evidence then someone else, or you may even out argue someone, but that doesnt make you better or correct. It just makes you the winner of that argument, or the guy with more evidence then the other guy. Now, I dont know if your objective is to discuss, to argue, or whatever. But I do know that with whatever youre trying to do, understand that you are coming from your own beliefs and perspectives ultimately.



Oh, geez.   

This slippery slope again, huh?? Should I point out that your position is inherently one of hypocrisy and narcissism?? I tore this stuff apart when Robert started bringing up Derrida -- do I really have to do it again?? Look, what you're basically saying is:

- No one is any more correct than another, all viewpoint are equal.

Unfortunately, the logical conclusion and application of this:

- No one is any more correct than another, except for those of us that say this is so.

This attempt to "level the playing field" is just a veiled attempt to make your view superior to all others. And the veil doesn't fool me.

Once again, if you want people to take your argument seriously, bring out logic and evidence. Don't try and deconstruct the logic and evidence of others in a hodgepodge of relativism (a Christian supporting epistemological relativism has got to be the irony of the year).

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> ummm... no. Mt. McKinley is in the ALASKA range. The Rockies extend through the middle of the continent, into Canada's province of Alberta south to New Mexico.
> 
> http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/province/rockymtn.html


Ok, I was wrong. But the chain is connected, right? I could have sworn it all connected, from what I remember of the map?


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Ok, I was wrong. But the chain is connected, right? I could have sworn it all connected, from what I remember of the map?



Uhhh... off-topic, guys.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

"I can also accept the idea that I may be the one who is wrong to some degree." - Tulisan

I agree with that. I have been wrong in my submitting evidence. I'm sorry, but I can't find all the evidence because we have so many stinking books at my house, I don't know which end is up. All I can say is you'll have to trust me on some of that stuff. I don't remember all the wording. And I can't even remember if they got alot of it documented. But I will say that I know that there was plenty of evidence there. I was wrong in saying it all without showing evidence. We had a book sale for School and I'm not sure whether stuff got sold, or it's just around here somewhere. When I find it I'll post. This is not a simple-backing-out-of-it-because-I-was-wrong-so-now-I'm-gonna-use-some-lame-excuse. It's just I don't know where all this stuff is. I know where a few of the tapes are. I could look at them. I do promise though that when I find stuff, I'll post it. I know what the books look like, but sadly I don't know the full titles. LOL. Sounds typical. Ok, fine say that. I don't care. Kind of embarrased that I can't find this stuff. HEHEH...Anyways, sorry. I'll post when I can. 

And just a note: Heretic, I don't do say stuff out of desperation. You constantly say it sounds like desperate things. I'm not desperate in the least. Otherwise, I wouldn't be arguing my point. Also, when I'm desperate, I say very little.  I don't ramble or even say much. I keep my mouth shut.

:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Uhhh... off-topic, guys.


Shut up....LOL. I just asked a question. I could look it up in my geography book. LOL. Ok fine, I'll do that right now and post the answer as a P.S. LOL


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> canuckma said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The belief is that the universe was created by G-d.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> canuckma said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Interesting. Does this "oral tradition" have any particular relationship to disciplines like Kabbalah??



Nothing whatsoever. The Talmud is the compilation of the Mishna, the Oral Law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai, and the Gemara, Rabbis' interpratations and commentaries on the Mishna.

Kabbalah is Mysticism.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> I agree with that. I have been wrong in my submitting evidence. I'm sorry, but I can't find all the evidence because we have so many stinking books at my house, I don't know which end is up. All I can say is you'll have to trust me on some of that stuff. I don't remember all the wording. And I can't even remember if they got alot of it documented. But I will say that I know that there was plenty of evidence there.



The problem here, ShaolinWolf, is that you don't seem to know what good, solid _evidence_ is in the first place. You seem to think that, just because someone says it and you agree with it, it must be "evidence". This is not the definition of the word in science.

If they didn't get "all of it documented", then its not actual evidence. Its just claims of evidence. There is a big difference.



> And just a note: Heretic, I don't do say stuff out of desperation. You constantly say it sounds like desperate things. I'm not desperate in the least. Otherwise, I wouldn't be arguing my point. Also, when I'm desperate, I say very little. I don't ramble or even say much. I keep my mouth shut.



I didn't mean to imply this was a conscious deception on your part, I just don't believe (based on your posts) that you actually know what good evidence or scientific process is. Everything you've claimed strikes me as if you are just tossing these words around nilly-willy, and can't back them up with good documentation or citation.

I don't think that's desperate or deceptive. Just misinformed.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Ok, it's probably in this thread, but I have been feeling lazy. Why do you post G-d in place of GOD?


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> The belief is that the universe was created by G-d.



Ah yes, but I was referring moreso to the particulars of the Genesis story. But, as you said, it is not regarded as literal history so it really isn't that much of a problem.



> Nothing whatsoever. The Talmud is the compilation of the Mishna, the Oral Law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai, and the Gemara, Rabbis' interpratations and commentaries on the Mishna.
> 
> Kabbalah is Mysticism.



Oh, I was under the impression that Kabbalah was orally transmitted for quite some time (supposedly down from Moses).



> Ok, it's probably in this thread, but I have been feeling lazy. Why do you post G-d in place of GOD?



Simple answer is its a Jewish thing. 

As I understand it, its against orthodox Jewish belief to actually pronounce the name of God (even in English, apparently) in keeping with Old Testamental laws. Then again, I could be completely off. 

Laterz.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ok, it's probably in this thread, but I have been feeling lazy. Why do you post G-d in place of GOD?



Observant Jews will not destroy religious items, or items on which the name of G-d is written. For that reason, you will see Jewish documnts refering to G-d or HaShem (lit. The Name).  Now the definition of destruction is obvious with physical media, but is subject to debate with regards to both electrinic storage and display technology. So to cover ourselves, and out of habit, we write G-d.

And before you ask, religious items no longer usable are buried in a Jewish cemetary.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Ok, I'm misinformed(not about Christianity, because, well, it's Faith, and I'm not aruging on that point.) and I don't present my stuff very well. Anyways, I've done studies at church, not recently, about creation and on my own time. I just seem to have forgotten alot. I have been racking my brain. I used to be able to spout it all out, but I haven't read all that stuff in about 2 years. Man, I feel so totally out of the loop. LOL. 


Anyways, there is a certain degree which I feel does not have to be documented. I done certain studies pertaining to the subject and I accept it as evidence. Some people need harder evidence, even tangible. With alot of things, yes, I need tangible, at least visible evidence. But because of so many studies I've done, I see how logical it is and thus it makes sense. I've studied Creation alot and I've seen how it all fits together, with the theory that Noah had dinosaurs on his ark(teenage dinosaurs could fit on his ark, even baby ones). And so many other things. I just take it to my belief because of the other stuff that I've read that connect it. But at times I forget that other people haven't studied it like I study it and thus they weaved basket only seems to them like a pile of weave. So, I guess what I'm saying is I can't present the evidence in the way you want it because it's scattered throughout all the books I've read and it would be so much to go through, considering I've studied from one book to the next. LOL. Anyways, I'll see what little I can find. I have a creation book over in the corner I just found and I'll go through it in a little bit.

And yes, I know that evidence is documented and things that are not documented evidence are subject to change. That's obvious. But I believe in the Bible as 100% truth, but that's because I've chosen to believe it. God says you either believe in 100% or 0%, no lukewarm stuff. 

:asian: 

P.S. I couldn't find my geography book, so nightingale, could you please just put it in as a P.S. ....LOL


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> As I understand it, its against orthodox Jewish belief to actually pronounce the name of God (even in English, apparently) in keeping with Old Testamental laws. Then again, I could be completely off.
> 
> Laterz.



Pretty good. Pronouncing is OK. We just don't know how. Hebrew has no vowels. The name of G-d, in Exodus, is written with the Herew letters yud-hey-vav-hey. Although the exact pronounciation is unknown, this is where Yehova (Jehova) comes from.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Ah, ok Canucka. Wasn't sure.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm misinformed(not about Christianity, because, well, it's Faith, and I'm not aruging on that point.) and I don't present my stuff very well. Anyways, I've done studies at church, not recently, about creation and on my own time. I just seem to have forgotten alot. I have been racking my brain. I used to be able to spout it all out, but I haven't read all that stuff in about 2 years. Man, I feel so totally out of the loop. LOL.
> 
> 
> Anyways, there is a certain degree which I feel does not have to be documented. I done certain studies pertaining to the subject and I accept it as evidence. Some people need harder evidence, even tangible. With alot of things, yes, I need tangible, at least visible evidence. But because of so many studies I've done, I see how logical it is and thus it makes sense. I've studied Creation alot and I've seen how it all fits together, with the theory that Noah had dinosaurs on his ark(teenage dinosaurs could fit on his ark, even baby ones). And so many other things. I just take it to my belief because of the other stuff that I've read that connect it. But at times I forget that other people haven't studied it like I study it and thus they weaved basket only seems to them like a pile of weave. So, I guess what I'm saying is I can't present the evidence in the way you want it because it's scattered throughout all the books I've read and it would be so much to go through, considering I've studied from one book to the next. LOL. Anyways, I'll see what little I can find. I have a creation book over in the corner I just found and I'll go through it in a little bit.
> ...


I'm willing to bet god never used the term no luke warm stuff.
Sean


----------



## Nightingale (May 20, 2004)

LOL.

Mental picture of Noah as dinosaur wrangler.

How, then, can you explain, the total absence of human fossils found with or in similar layers to, dinosaur fossils?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

I'm willing to bet god never used the term no luke warm stuff.
Sean

__________________


Well yeah, but that was symbolic. LOL. That's a symbolism used today. You either on one side of the fence or the other. You can't stay on the fence. Or you can't be luke warm, you should either be hot or cold. That's what I mean. heheh. 

:asian:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I'm willing to bet god never used the term no luke warm stuff.
> Sean




You can't be sure. G-d has a good sense of humour. After all He gave us the platypus, and politicians.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Observant Jews will not destroy religious items, or items on which the name of G-d is written. For that reason, you will see Jewish documnts refering to G-d or HaShem (lit. The Name). Now the definition of destruction is obvious with physical media, but is subject to debate with regards to both electrinic storage and display technology. So to cover ourselves, and out of habit, we write G-d.
> 
> And before you ask, religious items no longer usable are buried in a Jewish cemetary.



Ah, thanks for the clarification.  :asian: 



> Pretty good. Pronouncing is OK. We just don't know how. Hebrew has no vowels. The name of G-d, in Exodus, is written with the Herew letters yud-hey-vav-hey. Although the exact pronounciation is unknown, this is where Yehova (Jehova) comes from.



Hrmmm... I seem to recall something about it being against the Law to utter God's name, but I suppose I'm wrong.

In any event, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

You can't be sure. G-d has a good sense of humour. After all He gave us the platypus, and politicians. - CanuckaMA



LOL. True. And the sheep. Have you ever seen the show super sheep? I think it's glen davis? It's hilarious. It's all about how we relate to sheep in God's eyes(you know the sheperd and his flock?). It is so funny. He was saying why couldn't God have said we were a lion. He doesn't want to be a sheep. And yeah, it's funny. And yes, who said God doesn't have a sense of humour. In today's society if Christ had come, he would have probably said that.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Anyways, there is a certain degree which I feel does not have to be documented. I done certain studies pertaining to the subject and I accept it as evidence. Some people need harder evidence, even tangible. With alot of things, yes, I need tangible, at least visible evidence. But because of so many studies I've done, I see how logical it is and thus it makes sense. I've studied Creation alot and I've seen how it all fits together, with the theory that Noah had dinosaurs on his ark(teenage dinosaurs could fit on his ark, even baby ones). And so many other things. I just take it to my belief because of the other stuff that I've read that connect it. But at times I forget that other people haven't studied it like I study it and thus they weaved basket only seems to them like a pile of weave. So, I guess what I'm saying is I can't present the evidence in the way you want it because it's scattered throughout all the books I've read and it would be so much to go through, considering I've studied from one book to the next. LOL. Anyways, I'll see what little I can find. I have a creation book over in the corner I just found and I'll go through it in a little bit.



Or it could just be that all the studies you accepted as "evidence" at the time were just not documented or cited at all. Many "Creationist scientists" engage in this kind of nonsense.

Just because you believe something to be evidence, does not make it evidence. Just because it "makes sense" or "seems logical" to you, does not make it evidence (unless we're talking about logical proofs).

Without proper document, its just empty claims.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> Mental picture of Noah as dinosaur wrangler.
> 
> How, then, can you explain, the total absence of human fossils found with or in similar layers to, dinosaur fossils?




But the Bible does not imply that that story is the ONLY story. It even implies that G-d may not be the only one. Adam and Eve may be the first humans, but tehy certainly not the only ones created. Who did Cain and Abel marry?

And the First Commendment implies the existence of other deities. 'I am the Lord your G-d. You will not have other gods before Me.'

Remember that Torah was given as instructions to the Jews. it does not exclude other cultures.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hrmmm... I seem to recall something about it being against the Law to utter God's name, but I suppose I'm wrong.
> 
> In any event, thanks for the clarification.



Uttering G-d's name in vain. We utter His name every time we say a blessing.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Ok, well, I didn't say you have to believe it. I just said it makes sense to me and I find it to be plenty of evidence. Everything does not have to cold hard evidence to be believed. I mean look at evo...errr...n/m....LOL.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> But the Bible does not imply that that story is the ONLY story. It even implies that G-d may not be the only one.



The One that is Many??  :uhyeah: 



> Adam and Eve may be the first humans, but tehy certainly not the only ones created. Who did Cain and Abel marry?



This is a similar problem in other cultures, too.

One of the principal issues is that the word a people often refer to themselves with is also their word for 'human'. Thus, the Navaho have their creation myth on how 'the humans' were created, but then have trouble explaining where all these white folks came from.

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> But the Bible does not imply that that story is the ONLY story. It even implies that G-d may not be the only one. Adam and Eve may be the first humans, but tehy certainly not the only ones created. Who did Cain and Abel marry?
> 
> And the First Commendment implies the existence of other deities. 'I am the Lord your G-d. You will not have other gods before Me.'
> 
> Remember that Torah was given as instructions to the Jews. it does not exclude other cultures.


Yes, well, there was the little instance that incest in a sense of words was ok back then. Then, that whole thing with the sons of Satan(well, it says sons of God, but they were the fallen angels that went with Lucifer...) and all. Then things went kind of wrong. I mean, they didn't have the disease problems we do today with incest. Anyways, as messed up as it sounds, I accept that as the truth.

Also, with the commandment, God didn't want us worshipping Idols. I don't see the point in worshipping something fashioned by our hands.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Ok, well, I didn't say you have to believe it. I just said it makes sense to me and I find it to be plenty of evidence.



Which doesn't actually make it evidence, but just an idea you agree with.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

Ah, but it evidence enough for me. You believe it that way, and I find it to believable.

And it's not an Idea. It's many studies woven together that created several ideas.

:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

Wouldn't it be great when people say a word (in this case, "evidence"), they were actually referring to its definition and not some personal idea they came up with??


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

And wouldn't it be great if we could all get along and not tell everyone they are wrong after we just got done saying we can believe what we want? sounds bordeline hypocrite to me. I mean you haven't told hardly any references and yet you expect everyone else to give reference and I don't believe alot of what you've said either.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Yes, well, there was the little instance that incest in a sense of words was ok back then. Then, that whole thing with the sons of Satan(well, it says sons of God, but they were the fallen angels that went with Lucifer...) and all. Then things went kind of wrong. I mean, they didn't have the disease problems we do today with incest. Anyways, as messed up as it sounds, I accept that as the truth.
> 
> Also, with the commandment, God didn't want us worshipping Idols. I don't see the point in worshipping something fashioned by our hands.



Incest not at that level. 1st cousins, but not parents/kids. And the Satan thing is a Xtian invention.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> And wouldn't it be great if we could all get along and not tell everyone they are wrong after we just got done saying we can believe what we want?



"We"?? I don't recall claiming that. I think beliefs are subject to scrutiny under logic, experience, and evidence.



> sounds bordeline hypocrite to me.



Not hardly. I simply expect people to use terms correctly when they choose to start tossing them around. Neither "theory" nor "evidence" mean what you  have used them to mean thus far.



> I mean you haven't told hardly any references and yet you expect everyone else to give reference and I don't believe alot of what you've said either.



I'm not the one making the truth-claims. And, every time I have, I have in fact given direct references.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> And the Satan thing is a Xtian invention.



Personally, I think it was a Zoroasterian invention. The Christians just stole it.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

I never said parent/kids. It was more likely that it was sibling. Adam did have many sons and daughters after Seth.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

And another thing, the We, was not directed at me. I never agreed with it totally.


:asian:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 20, 2004)

The Judas/Lucifer paradox.

There is an interesting idea posited by an author of comparative mythology, that states that Lucifer and Judas are not bad guys, but heroes.

Imagine God creates mankind to become worthy companions of God. Takes some evolution, no?  So god posts a question to the angelic hosts..."Who among you loves me enough to dedicate a serious chunk of time to testing these new critters I've made, to help shape them in to worthy companions?"  Only one answers. Lucifer.

Next scene, Jesus knows he's cross-bound.  Posts the same question to his disciples, since without an arrest, etc., there can be no crucifixion.  1 apostle believes enough in the importance of a sacrificial lamb for all nations, so he goes off to do that which he must do quickly. Having seen the torture, gets guilt ridden, can't hang with the angst, so hangs himself.

Without the volunteer bad-guys, then what?

D.

PS -- keep in mind, I'm a frisbeetarian, and don't ascribe to much of this silliness at all.  All just blind men, describing what they feel in their private little darkness.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> I never said parent/kids. It was more likely that it was sibling. Adam did have many sons and daughters after Seth.



Possible, but unlikely. Cousins marrying was common. The closest thing to direct family incest in Torah is the possibility that Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

Heh. Sounds like somebody's been reading Joseph Campbell. 

Need it also be mentioned that Lucifer literally means 'bringer of light'??


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Possible, but unlikely. Cousins marrying was common. The closest thing to direct family incest in Torah is the possibility that Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.



Well, there's Adam and Eve.... sorta, anyway.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, there's Adam and Eve.... sorta, anyway.


Technically, Adam and Eve were the same person. gives a whole new meaning to GFY  :boing2:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

_Well, there's Adam and Eve.... sorta, anyway._


LOL...heheheh. That sounded...yeah...heh


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> Technically, Adam and Eve were the same person.



Y'know, that suddenly reminds me of a Kabbalastic interpretation of Genesis that I read a while back. Something about the events of Genesis being metaphors for the "dualizing" of Adam Kadmon.

Or something like that.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Y'know, that suddenly reminds me of a Kabbalastic interpretation of Genesis that I read a while back. Something about the events of Genesis being metaphors for the "dualizing" of Adam Kadmon.
> 
> Or something like that.



Whatever the early Kabbalists were on.......... I want some :lol:


----------



## Cruentus (May 20, 2004)

erg.

Just a couple of things...



> I believe the case of the historical Jesus is a similar situation.



Boy oh boy...if your willing to reduce the assertation of the possability that Jesus may have been an actual human being to being in the same realm as asserting that the possability that pygmies used industrial technology, then I can't help you.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one!  :uhyeah: 




> Also, be careful how you're tossing around the word "theories"



I said "theorize" which means "to propose a theory." 



> And, in any event, there is enough material evidence to prove certain things beyond reasonable doubt (unless you're a conspiracy nutso)



Not always. There is not always material evidence available to us. In fact, in all ancient history, there is often very little.

But, hey....I must be the conspiricy nutso....or perhaps just a little confused... :rofl: 



> True as that may be, it does not change the fact that not all positions are equally valid



Never said that. I am saying that the less material evidence you have, the more that is open to interpretation. In the case of Jesus, or any ancient history, there is a lot that is open to interpretation. And for some, their Ego refuses to allow them to accept anything that doesn't fit their interpretation as "evidence."



> Yes, and you need to understand that that doesn't magically exclude your logic and "evidence" of criticism by others. This seems to be the conclusion you were going for, and its not a conclusion that is very workable in any sense.



I understand that. It's open to criticism, but my beliefs are on the same "playing field" as yours, or anyone elses. This is because there is not enough material evidence to prove or disprove the Christian premise, or to prove or disprove another premise over the Christian one. Criticize all you like (as you certianly do), but that doesn't change this "fact."



> A logical proof is false/illogical if the premise(s) is also false/illogical. That is very basic stuff, and one of the first things you learn in Critical Thinking & Analysis. No amount of rationalizing will change this, without falling into prerational narcissism.



I am well versed in Logic. Anyone who is knows that it only works if the variables are agreed upon. Not all premises are provable or disprovable to be "true" by Logic because of lack of material evidence, so we have to agree or accept the variables before moving forward with a proof. You and I have been down this road before, and it boils down to the fact that we don't accept each others variables.

I can use logic to prove the existance of God. But that doesn't mean that you'll agree that my premises or my variables are true, or that I'll be able to prove them as such.



> If we are discussing pure logic (and not empirical truth), then there are certain rules and dictums that are followed.



I am really discussing the use of logic to prove/disprove religion, or ancient history, rather then "Pure Logic." I understand the basic truth tables...thank you.



> Just because there is a "God", it does not necessarily follow that Mythical Prefigurement is true.



I agree with this statement. To believe in the Mythical Prefigurement, you have to agree on certain variables. You have to assume God exists. If you assume this, then it is logical to assume that the "story" behind God, whatever it is, is a true story. Then, you have to assume that the Catholic faith (in my assumption) is the closest man-made interpretation of "the true story." Then, you have to assume that other religions are not "all wrong," but may have parts that coincide with Catholicism. If you find this assumption to be true, then it is easy to come to the conclusion that the "truth" in all other faiths support the truths in Catholicism, which reflects the truth in the God story.

It really isn't that hard to understand. Sure, there are a lot of assumptions, and we can pick a part each assumption. All that will do is create more assumptions that need to be picked apart, and so on and so forth; and all along the way we'll find that you can't prove many assumptions to be "true" at all when talking about subjects that lack material evidence. So it will just go around in a circle forever, as we try to agree on the variables. 

Now, you can call Mythical Prefigurement idea "elitist" and "racist" all you want, but that is only your opinion, which doesn't make it so.

The theory is a hell of a lot more inclusive then "I believe that my way is right and everyone else is wrong" for one. For two, your forgetting the Christian premise that has to go along with the ideal, which makes it very non-elitist. That ideal is that "truth" doesn't make you a better person, and it definatily ain't going to get you to heaven. In our belief, Satan knows what is "true" more then we do, yet he knowingly spreads lies. Someone could know all the truth in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are going to live a good life over an evil one. So, I may believe that my religion is the most correct and complete, but that doesn't mean I am going to get to heaven over, say, a Jewish or Buddhist person. How can I determine who God loves and who choses to go to heaven? You see, when you add the Christian premise to the Mythical Prefigurement idea, it no longer becomes a "racist, elitist" idea. If you add the Christian ideal, you really can't say that you are better then someone else.

But, of course, you can believe what you'd like.



> Should I even go into the fact that your "relativist" argument above is inherently contradictory and hypocritical?? After all, all beliefs are true for the individual... except for the belief that all beliefs are true for the individual, which is obviously the ultimate truth, right?? No position is "better" than another... except for the one that says this is so. Ciruclar, circular, circular. That's why logic is so important, Paul.



It is a paradox. Again, I have to assume that God exists. I have to then assume that there is an ultimate truth, both seen and unseen, and "actual" truth, both seen and unseen, that only God truely has and knows. Then I have to assume that there is individual (I'll use the word "percieved") "truth" which is basically a reflection of ultimate and actual truth but through the individuals eyes. This is what the individual choses to see, the percieved truth, and it may or may not be "true" by Gods standards.

So, it isn't as poorly thought out as you think. All beliefs are percieved to be true from the eyes of the individual, but may or may not be true in the eyes of God (again, going with the assumption that there is a God).

So the logic isn't what you say, really. It is more like "all beliefs are _percieved_ to be true to the individual, but may or may not be true to "God." Since we do not know exactly what is true to "God," then all our beliefs have equal value until proven otherwise.

The logic, btw, still works if you don't believe in God, you just have to change the variables. You then have "all beliefs are percieved to be true by the individual, but may or may not be "actually true." Since we are all looking through the glasses of our own percieved truth, we do not know exactly what is actually true, therefore all our beliefs have equal value until proven otherwise." In this case, yes, even that statement could be false.

If you look at this arguement, it is not narcissistic, elitist, or racist, or ethnocentric, or whatever clever names that you would like to attribute to my beliefs. It is actually far from elitist in that I give value to everyones beliefs. All beliefs are open to criticism, but this puts them all on the same "playing field". 

And, if you look at the arguement also, I am not saying that "I am right and everyone else is wrong." I am just saying "I believe that I am right." Is this different then what, say, YOU are saying? How is that "elitist"?



> This attempt to "level the playing field" is just a veiled attempt to make your view superior to all others. And the veil doesn't fool me.
> 
> Once again, if you want people to take your argument seriously, bring out logic and evidence. Don't try and deconstruct the logic and evidence of others in a hodgepodge of relativism (a Christian supporting epistemological relativism has got to be the irony of the year).



Gee, heretic...no one can fool you!  :rofl: Who's the conspiricy nutzo now?  :uhyeah: 

You can see what you want to see, but I'll tell you that there are no "veiled attempts" anywhere. It would seem that you have a problem with recognizing that because of the lack of material proof to support really any belief regarding "Jesus," other peoples "evidence" is just as valid as yours. You seem to want to believe that your conjecture is based off evidence that is in some way more valid then others. For some reason, it appears that you resist having a dialog on equal grounds, and that you want to put yourself above everyone else before the conversations even starts. This is just the appearance; tell me if I am wrong. 

Once again, if YOU want people to take YOUR arguement seriously, then start respecting other peoples opinions, and be willing to argue from equal ground. If you are respecting others opinions and willing to argue from equal ground, then it would help if it seemed more that way.

Now, in the "historical Jesus" thread, there is plenty of "evidence" and logic there to support the Christian idea that Jesus was a real person; although some points are presented better then others. You may choose not to agree with the variables for the logic, and you may choose to try to refute the evidence, but don't say that there is "no evidence" or "no logic" while assessing that your evidence and logic is somehow superior. Just because you assess something and filabuster it to death, that doesn't make it true.

We can have dialog, if you are willing to talk on equal footing and with a mutual respect for each others beliefs. If you are not willing to do that, then there is no point on continuing with the subject, as nothing good could possibly come out of talking to you. 

Paul

P.S. It's funny that you brought up Robert. Filibustering someones arguement doesn't constitute "tearing their stuff apart" or winning the arguement.  :lol:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

_Just because you assess something and filabuster it to death, that doesn't make it true._

WHOO-HOOO!!! I love it. That is the quote of the day....YEAH!!!!...Man, you took the words right out of my mouth. Man-o-man. You put everything into words that I couldn't. RIGHT ON!!!!...Can't express the joy I hear in all that you said. Right on, right on, right on!!!! 

On another note, I totally agree and didn't want to come out and say what that one sentence said, along with everything else that you said. Keep on, keep on, keep on. Some day, I'll be able to put everything into words again. LOL. 

Great work and keep the Faith. 

In Christ,


Ryan

:asian: 

P.S. I don't want to sound rude or anything and I know your intent was not this and this may sound immature, but I needed to say this(Tulisan, I know you might not like this): "TAKE THAT, HERETIC!!!!"...anyways, that one sentence expresses my attitude toward Heretic. LOL...sorry, I just had to say that. I know, it wasn't nice, but as my day has gone the way it has, that picked me up. LOVED IT!!!! WOOT!

P.S.S. I know I've been somewhat radical in my posts, but then again, I just didn't feel like saying all that. And yeah, Tulisan, you don't want to be associated with me, but I agree with you on what you said in this post...YEAH!


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

And yes, I know you don't mean it at all like I did and I must say that was stupid of me to post that, but I had a rough night and that sentence really got me. And I know in the morning your gonna berate me for saying that, but man, that was the kind of post that gets you going. I'd give you kudos point for that, but I'm not in the area to give points. And I'd give them to you for the right reasons, not for the reasons I posted. I agree with what you said. I didn't post things that way, but you came off as both sounding unoffensive(I could come off that way, if I tried harder, but I've been offended, so I don't try; also, I meant unoffensive as in heretic should not be offended, though just about everything offends when it's not founded on hardcore evidence) and stand up true to your beliefs. I think that was great. You've earned my respect. THe only question I had was, don't be offended, because I just want to know, are you a born again Christian?(just a question?). I just want to know.


And I stand on what I said back several posts about it being the fact that I don't care what people think is evidence, as I tried to put it, Logic does at some point have a very sad ending. I've know people who put logic first in their life and basically wasted their life, missing the whole point. And yes, I don't care Heretic if that is stupid, but you do come off as sounding like you are the only person right and that others do not have opinions. I don't care if you say that stuff, this is just a forum, I have plenty of people outside of this forum with a life. The same for you. So I don't care about everything having to be hardcore evidence, or even plain evidence. Beliefs and evidence don't always mix. And if you say faith isn't all it's cracked up to be, I don't really care. I believe in Christ and that He lived, and He walked and He died and that three days later he rose and 44 days later He ascended into Heaven where He awaits return to earth. 

And what does this have to do with this thread? Plenty! And you know what? I don't care. I don't care. Anyways, sorry to go off on that tangent, but you know your not the only one who is right. 

You want something that seems that God has shown us signs in the stars. I've been reading stuff lately that astronomers have been able to trace back planetary alignments and such. When the Jerusalem was captured and all that back in A.D. 70, there was a sign 4 years prior. In A.D. 66 there was a meteorite shower that make a sign of a sword in the way it fell toward the earth. And the same thing happened in 1910, 4 years before WWI. And 4 years before WWII. And 4 years before the Israel war in the 60s or whenever it was. And the Gulf War. And the war on terrorism. It's all the same. I haven't seen the pictures, but it's been by noted scholars, one of them is Perry Stone Jr. It's amazing stuff. Read Unleashing the Beast, the last few chapters.

http://www.triumphpro.com/leonid_meteor_shower.htm
http://www.britastro.com/sinai_leonids99/reports/frost.html
And this is a link to another guy. They have been happening more frequently and right before wars and other cosmic signs happen on jewish holidays. It's amazing. I just find it interesting that it happens on certain days that pertain to only certain events. All of these events have been noted by religious and nonreligious scholars all over the world. Look it up on google. Search leonid meteor showers. Sword meteor showers. Etc.

Anyways, I'm going to bed. And if you want to look at me and think I'm crazy, go right ahead. I'm tired and a bit punchy, but no less worse for wear. I enjoy these debates. Though, I haven't been able to find hardcore evidence, and you probably know all about those meteor showers, and good for you. I find it interesting and don't believe it be a coincidence.

Good Night

:asian:

P.S. I started off on that one sentence and I know Tulisan never intended it like that, but sorry, I take the blame for that one...LOL. Man, that quote is great!!


----------



## Cruentus (May 21, 2004)

Shaolinwolf...dude, you crack me up sometimes. Thanks for the laugh this morning.  :rofl: 



> because I just want to know, are you a born again Christian?(just a question?). I just want to know.



Well, you could say yes, by fundamentalist Christian standards. I started basically as an agnostic, and a very anti-Catholic/anti-Christian one at that. I did more research then my brain could contain, and I chose Catholicism as my faith, and I choose to believe that "Jesus is my Lord and Savior."

So, I am a Catholic. Because I choose to be one you could say that makes me "Born Again."

I hope that answers your question.

PAUL
:asian:


----------



## Jay Bell (May 21, 2004)

ShaolinWolf,


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 21, 2004)

Ignoring Jaybell...


Anyways, Well, I was tired last night, and I wrote that at like 12pm, so I might have said more than I should've, but oh well. LOL....Anyways, that's great to know that your a born-agin Christian. And Catholic is only the denomination, not who you are. That's why I don't call myself a Baptist, I'm a Christian. It should matter what denom you are, just as long as we have one common denominator: Christ. That's makes us brothers and sister in the Lord Jesus.

I'm not really fundamentalist, even if it sounds like it on here. I'm not as radical as it sounds. I just speak my mind more when I type than vocally. 


:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 21, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> It should matter what denom you are, just as long as we have one common denominator: Christ.
> 
> 
> :asian:


I meant it Shouldn't matter what denomination you are.


----------



## heretic888 (May 21, 2004)

> Whatever the early Kabbalists were on.......... I want some



Now, now, Canuck.... I don't see how that view is any more "out there" than the notion that the first woman was created by Yahveh ripping a rib outta the first man, or that "death and pain" were introduced at the behest of a talking snake.

But what do I know??


----------



## Cryozombie (May 21, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> ShaolinWolf,




Is It just me... or does that guy look an awful lot like THIS GUY:


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14414


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 21, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> It should matter what denom you are, just as long as we have one common denominator: Christ.


Similarly, others (including myself) think that it doesn't matter what religion you are, just as long as we have the common denominator of being human.  And I don't mean just having homo sapien sapien bodies, I mean regarding each other as equal rational beings, etc.  

Just a passing thought.  And if anyone said something similar before, my apologies.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 21, 2004)

I said it shouldn't...read my post after that. I made a bad typo!!!!!! OK?!?!?!...IF A MOD WANTS TO FIX THAT!!!!...lol... IT SHOULD READ: IT SHOULD NOT MATTER WHAT DENOMINATION YOU ARE, AS LONG AS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IS CHRIST!!!!...LOL...but I did fix that...just not on that post...now you all are gonna ride me, right?...lol...anyways...later


:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 21, 2004)

Tulisan, close, but I don't think the guy had his mouth open...lol


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 21, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> I said it shouldn't...read my post after that. I made a bad typo!!!!!! OK?!?!?!...


Uh, I didn't say anything about your typo, and I knew what you meant in the original post.  I was commenting on the idea you posted, not the words you used to present it.


----------



## heretic888 (May 21, 2004)

In reply to Tunisan (Paul)....



> Boy oh boy...if your willing to reduce the assertation of the possability that Jesus may have been an actual human being to being in the same realm as asserting that the possability that pygmies used industrial technology, then I can't help you.
> 
> I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one!



Errrrr... sorry, Paul, but I think you took what I actually said a bit out of context.

I believe the "historical Jesus" and "industrial Pygmy" are similar _in the sense_ that they are phenomena in which we have little-to-no material evidence for their validity, and that they are both situations in which we _should_ have solid material evidence of some kind. But, the sad truth is, we do not.

I do not believe the two phenomena have equal probability or likelihood, but that they are similar in that particular sense.



> I said "theorize" which means "to propose a theory."



Which is why I cautioned your use of the word "theory", as you are clearly misusing the word. You can't "propose a theory" --- a theory is a hypothesis that becomes consistently "proven" (so to speak) over large stretches of time (such as the Cell Theory or Theory of Evolution). Proposing something implies a novelty, a new invention --- not a time-tested concept.



> Not always. There is not always material evidence available to us. In fact, in all ancient history, there is often very little.
> 
> But, hey....I must be the conspiricy nutso....or perhaps just a little confused...



No, just a little confused. 

Next time, I suggest reading my post in more detail --- else you may have noticed my qualifier of "certain things". As in, "not all" things. You're basically just repeating what I said.

And, in regards to the period in question (1st to 2nd centuries CE), this was an abundantly literate period in human history (even though many documents were lost due to the Christian attacks on the Library of Alexandria).



> Never said that. I am saying that the less material evidence you have, the more that is open to interpretation.



Ooop.... be careful with "universals" like that. They aren't always true (ironic, I know).

Take, for example, Aristotlean rules of logic --- there is absolutey no _material_ evidence, so to speak, to support these principles. Yet, we have little doubt of their viability. Likewise, even when we have impressive amounts of material evidence itself --- there can still be ample room for debate and speculation. This is done quite often in statistics, in which the same figures are used to justify completely contrary points-of-view.



> In the case of Jesus, or any ancient history, there is a lot that is open to interpretation.



True as that may be, this still does not relegate the situation to a historical relativism. This is why it is so important, as I stressed before, to bring the proper evidence to the table (whether material, logical, or translogical). Retreating into realms of "true for me", while valid in some respects, is ultimately a dead-end.



> And for some, their Ego refuses to allow them to accept anything that doesn't fit their interpretation as "evidence."



Undoubtedly. 



> I understand that. It's open to criticism, but my beliefs are on the same "playing field" as yours, or anyone elses.



In a sense, yes.



> This is because there is not enough material evidence to prove or disprove the Christian premise, or to prove or disprove another premise over the Christian one. Criticize all you like (as you certianly do), but that doesn't change this "fact."



That isn't a "fact", its a belief you wish to cling to without providing any real logic or evidence in its defense. One, which I might add, is inherently contradictory and hypocritical --- namely, because it claims for itself (ultimate truth or "facthood") what it denies to all others ("no other view if 'factual' but this one").

The above statement are one of the major problems in discussions like these. You claim that there is not enough evidence to "prove or disprove" either position, but then emphatically refuse to provide any evidence or logic in support of this thesis. The supposed truth of the statement is portrayed in a "matter-of-fact" and "undebatable" fashion --- you claim it is a "fact", but give absolutely no reason for why we should believe this is so.

You're just using epistemological relativism for your own benefit (as you clearly don't _really_ believe all views are equal, as evidenced by your support of Catholicism), as a tool. And, what's worse, you're not even providing any logic or evidence to support relativism --- just "this is the way it is 'cuz I say so" rhetoric.

I can accept that the decision as to whether either position is "provable" or not is ultimately up to individual choice (as you can only "see" what your mind is capable of taking in). I cannot accept the notion that either position is ultimately "unprovable" simply because one claims this is so.



> I am well versed in Logic. Anyone who is knows that it only works if the variables are agreed upon. Not all premises are provable or disprovable to be "true" by Logic because of lack of material evidence, so we have to agree or accept the variables before moving forward with a proof. You and I have been down this road before, and it boils down to the fact that we don't accept each others variables.
> 
> I can use logic to prove the existance of God. But that doesn't mean that you'll agree that my premises or my variables are true, or that I'll be able to prove them as such.



Ummm.... sorry, but no.

Whether something is "logical" and whether something is "true" are two completely different animals. I refer you to the Two Situations involving Bob that I posited in an earlier post --- only one was logical, but both were untrue. It is the truthfulness of the "variables" that are in dispute here, not the logic. Once again, a proof is logical _if and only if_ its premises are logical --- this has nothing to do with empirical "truth".

As for arguing for God's existence --- sorry, you can't use logic to do that. You can maybe argue that your belief in God is logical, but not that its based on empirical "truth".



> I am really discussing the use of logic to prove/disprove religion, or ancient history, rather then "Pure Logic."



Technically, all logic can _really do_ is prove whether a belief (whether religious or historical) is logical. Not its truthfulness.



> You have to assume God exists. If you assume this, then it is logical to assume that the "story" behind God, whatever it is, is a true story.



Nope. There is absolutely no logic at all behind such a conception. Let's use another example to demonstrate this:

1) George Washington really existed. 2) We have a book or "story" that describes the life of George Washington. 3) Since George Washington really existed, this book or "story" must be true.

You're basically using the same logic as above --- the only problem being there can be (and have been) plenty of fictional books written about the real-life George Washington. The belief has no logical basis whatsoever.

The belief that there is a "God" and the belief that the "story" attributed to Him is basically true are two completely different animals, and have no logical connection whatsoever (with the exception that if there is no God, this automatically invalidates the truth of the "story" --- but, again, we are discussing logic here and not "truth").



> Then, you have to assume that the Catholic faith (in my assumption) is the closest man-made interpretation of "the true story." Then, you have to assume that other religions are not "all wrong," but may have parts that coincide with Catholicism. If you find this assumption to be true, then it is easy to come to the conclusion that the "truth" in all other faiths support the truths in Catholicism, which reflects the truth in the God story.



Y'know ---- there's a basic principle in both science and philosophy: the simpler a thesis is (that, is the fewer premises required for its truthfulness), the more likely it is true. A dozen assumptions and premises doesn't lend well to this principle (this is one of the principal reasons Evolutionism is looked with favor over traditional Creationism).



> It really isn't that hard to understand. Sure, there are a lot of assumptions, and we can pick a part each assumption. All that will do is create more assumptions that need to be picked apart, and so on and so forth; and all along the way we'll find that you can't prove many assumptions to be "true" at all when talking about subjects that lack material evidence. So it will just go around in a circle forever, as we try to agree on the variables.



Uhhh... sorry, not quite.

You do realize that in your defense of "not picking apart assumptions", you just made one more assumption (that picking apart assumptions will necessarily create more assumptions), no?? A performative contradiction.

This is just one more of your "it is so 'cuz I say so", "matter-of-fact" statements. You claim picking apart assumptions will create more assumptions, but don't provide any logic or evidence for why this is so. Thus, the statement is just _one more_ assumption in your already-long list.

Speaking from personal experience myself, I have found that debunking the assumptions of others does not "create" more assumptions that need to be "picked apart". This implies that questioning someone's beliefs/assumptions necessarily means that the questioner's beliefs/assumptions should now be questioned --- which is just bad debating. The proper defense of one's beliefs is to _defend one's beliefs_ --- not attack the beliefs of the questioner.



> Now, you can call Mythical Prefigurement idea "elitist" and "racist" all you want, but that is only your opinion, which doesn't make it so.



Perhaps not. But, I've got logical reasoning for my claims --- which is more than I can say for any defense of Mythical Prefigurement provided thus far. You haven't actually attempted to _defend_ Mythical Prefigurement with either material evidence or logical reasoning, but have instead tried to "pick apart" any supposed assumptions you believe I hold. Now, I see where you came to the conclusion above...

Of course, this is not the way it has to be. The proper response in a discussion is not to attack the questioner's assumptions, but to defend one's own with logic and/or material evidence. This has yet to be done.



> The theory is a hell of a lot more inclusive then "I believe that my way is right and everyone else is wrong" for one.



Once again, Mythical Prefigurement is not a theory. If anything, its simply a thesis.

Also, I fail to see the difference between the two ideas. Mythical Prefigurement explicitly states that, not only are the myths of all other religions incorrect while my own are correct, but that all those myths exist for the _sole purpose_ of proving the validity of my myths. I would like an explanation of how this is not "everyone else is wrong but me".



> For two, your forgetting the Christian premise that has to go along with the ideal, which makes it very non-elitist.



Nope, sorry. Your modern understanding of Christianity is a bit of a novelty --- as, even today, orthodox Christian belief still holds that all the "unsaved" (i.e., those that disagree with us) will go to Hell (whether this is perceived as a place or a "state of being"). That's pure elitism.

Don't mistake your personal take on Christian beliefs as being indicative of Christianity as a whole.



> That ideal is that "truth" doesn't make you a better person, and it definatily ain't going to get you to heaven. In our belief, Satan knows what is "true" more then we do, yet he knowingly spreads lies. Someone could know all the truth in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are going to live a good life over an evil one. So, I may believe that my religion is the most correct and complete, but that doesn't mean I am going to get to heaven over, say, a Jewish or Buddhist person. How can I determine who God loves and who choses to go to heaven? You see, when you add the Christian premise to the Mythical Prefigurement idea, it no longer becomes a "racist, elitist" idea. If you add the Christian ideal, you really can't say that you are better then someone else.



Ummm.... that's nice and all, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I wasn't talking about whether Christianity says whether you go to Heaven or not if you know the "truth". Nor, was I talking about whether Christians are the only ones believed to go to Heaven. This doesn't factor into the perceived elitism of Mythical Prefigurement whatsoever, as nowhere was "Heaven" ever mentioned in my criticism.

The elitism has to do with the inherently ethnocentric ideas of Mythical Prefigurement --- that the stories of all other religions and cultures exist to "prove" ours right. It doesn't matter what you believe happens to the adherents of those other religions/cultures, the fact remains that Mythical Prefigurement is an inherently arrogant and ethnocentric stance. You may believe EVERYBODY goes to Heaven when they die ('cuz God really is such a nice Guy and all), and still believe Mythical Prefigurement is true --- meaning, you still believe all other myths are inherently false, and were created for the purpose of "proving" your own correct.

That doesn't change a thing. Mythical Prefigurement is still ethnocentrism incarnate --- regardless of any beliefs indirectly associated with it (especially since, last time I checked, Mythical Prefigurement doesn't say everyone that believes in those "other myths" goes to Paradise when they die). 

The simple fact remains is that there is no reason to believe those "other myths" prefigure, or point to, the story of Jesus Christ outside of cultural prejudice. I point you to the previous hypothetical example in which a Manicheist could make similar claims in Jesus' perceived relationship to Manes (and the Dionysian to the Osirian). It all boils down to cultural bias and prejudice.



> It is a paradox.



No, its hypocrisy. You deny to others what you take for yourself, a claim for "ultimate" or "observable" truth.



> So, it isn't as poorly thought out as you think. All beliefs are percieved to be true from the eyes of the individual, but may or may not be true in the eyes of God (again, going with the assumption that there is a God).
> 
> So the logic isn't what you say, really. It is more like "all beliefs are percieved to be true to the individual, but may or may not be true to "God." Since we do not know exactly what is true to "God," then all our beliefs have equal value until proven otherwise.



Actually, yeah. It is. Its a very twisted and convoluted take on relativism. But, its relativism nonetheless.

You claim, at root, "all claims are basically equal, all are perceived to be true for the individual" --- with the backdrop of God's unknowable "ultimate truth" tossed in for flavor. The problem with such a position is that it claims for itself what it denies to all others: a performative contradiction.

What it really says is: "No claim is any more 'truthful' or 'correct' than another --- except for the one that claims this is so." Because, despite your _claims_ for espistemological egalitarianism, you are still making "this is right and this is wrong" truth-statements --- that all those that say all views are basically equal are "right" (including you), and all those that say otherwise are "wrong".

Postmodernist philosophers fall into this trap all the time.



> If you look at this arguement, it is not narcissistic, elitist, or racist, or ethnocentric, or whatever clever names that you would like to attribute to my beliefs. It is actually far from elitist in that I give value to everyones beliefs. All beliefs are open to criticism, but this puts them all on the same "playing field".



Sure, you give value to everyone's beliefs. You just give your position the most value. This puts everyone on the same "playing field", with a subtle attempt to make yourself the umpire.

Because, remember, "all views have the same value --- except for the one that says this is so". Because, obviously, you feel the "same value" position has more truth or value than the "different value" position. Circular, circular, circular.



> And, if you look at the arguement also, I am not saying that "I am right and everyone else is wrong." I am just saying "I believe that I am right." Is this different then what, say, YOU are saying? How is that "elitist"?



Ummm.... because I don't pretend to be elitist while denying to others what I take for myself.



> You can see what you want to see, but I'll tell you that there are no "veiled attempts" anywhere.



Well, not intentionally anyway. I wouldn't make such claims about the postmodernists that fall prey to this kind of thinking, either --- but, it doesn't change the basic nature and substance of their arguments.



> It would seem that you have a problem with recognizing that because of the lack of material proof to support really any belief regarding "Jesus," other peoples "evidence" is just as valid as yours. You seem to want to believe that your conjecture is based off evidence that is in some way more valid then others.



Umm..... well, yeah. Sorta.

I think one of the problems with your criticism of me, Paul, is that the "lack of historical sources" is only _one_ facet of my position. I have quite a bit of material evidence on my side (all of which, of course, is open to debate): the treatment of Jesus in "Paul's" authentic letters, the "silence" of all known early Christian fathers regarding Jesus' autobiographical details, the parallels with Pagan Osiris-Dionysus myths, the general Gnostic/Mystery approach to god-men and Christianity's perceived relationship with such approaches, the pre-eminence of Docetism througout early Christianity, etc. etc.

I happen to believe there is _more_ and _better_ evidence in support of my position than the historicist's. If that makes me "arrogant", well, then I guess I'm arrogant.



> For some reason, it appears that you resist having a dialog on equal grounds, and that you want to put yourself above everyone else before the conversations even starts. This is just the appearance; tell me if I am wrong.
> 
> Once again, if YOU want people to take YOUR arguement seriously, then start respecting other peoples opinions, and be willing to argue from equal ground. If you are respecting others opinions and willing to argue from equal ground, then it would help if it seemed more that way.



I do argue from equal ground, in the sense that I think everyone has their own unique perspective, reasoning, and "evidence" to bring to the table. That does _not_ mean I just blindly accept they have as much evidence as me, but that they have their own take on things which deserve attention.



> Now, in the "historical Jesus" thread, there is plenty of "evidence" and logic there to support the Christian idea that Jesus was a real person; although some points are presented better then others. You may choose not to agree with the variables for the logic, and you may choose to try to refute the evidence, but don't say that there is "no evidence" or "no logic" while assessing that your evidence and logic is somehow superior. Just because you assess something and filabuster it to death, that doesn't make it true.



I'm afraid, Paul, that this all boils down to a matter of divergent definitions.

You are using "evidence" and "logic" in a way that they are not used in the formal disciplines that make use of them (science and philosophy), similar to your use of the word "theory". I _do_ think people have their reasons and bases for believing what they believe --- that doesn't make any of this "evidence" or "logic" in the formal sense of the words.

I suppose the problem is I'm using the formal, professional definitions of these concepts --- whereas you seem to be using the more informal, everyday usages. Within those terms, however, (the informal usages) I would agree with your generalizations.



> P.S. It's funny that you brought up Robert. Filibustering someones arguement doesn't constitute "tearing their stuff apart" or winning the arguement.



Ok, now that stab was just plain silly.

These are complex definitions, with complex arguments. Your notion that because I am giving more than a few words to each issue raised, I am necessarily "fillibustering" is completely illogical and unfounded. The topic on the nature of logic alone is a very lengthy topic (which by no means have I done justice to here).

I should also mention, Paul, that you were the first among us to toss out a "giant" post. 

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 21, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Uh, I didn't say anything about your typo, and I knew what you meant in the original post. I was commenting on the idea you posted, not the words you used to present it.


Yes, I got what you said, and no comment on that. I was just making sure everyone else understood that it was a typo.:uhyeah: 

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (May 22, 2004)

Heretic,

We agree on a lot of stuff, but Ill have to humbly disagree with other stuff, such as the idea that I am an elitist bastard. 

Now let me logically explain a few ideas (again) because you seem to be misunderstanding what I have said, or purposely twisting what I have said. So, Ill try to do this as formally as I can.

Propositions:

Proposition: There is a God.
Proposition: There is a story behind everything that is materially true and factual (absolute truth).
Proposition: Individuals see what is absolutely true through their own perceptions based off material evidence, interpretations, and ideals - creating a perceived truth.
Proposition: Perceived truth may not by the same as absolute truth.
Proposition: There may be one perceived truth that is the closest to the absolute truth.
Proposition: Parts in perceived truths that are reflective of absolute truths support each other.
Proposition: Elitism is the belief that one person is better then another.
Proposition: The truth to someones belief doesnt make him or her better or worse then another.

Inferences and Conclusions:

*Proof of an absolute truth behind the story of God. *
Premise: There is a God.
Premise: There is a story behind everything that is absolutely true.
Conclusion: There is a story behind God that is absolutely true.

*Proof that Individuals beliefs may or may not represent absolute truth behind Gods story.*
Premise: Individuals understand things, or believes things, through a perceived truth.
Premise: Perceived truth may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of the absolute truth. 
Conclusion: Individuals beliefs may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of the absolute truth behind Gods story.

* Proof that someones beliefs may or may not be representative of the absolute truth behind Gods story.*
Premise: The story behind God is absolutely true.
Premise: Individuals beliefs may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of the absolute truth.
Conclusion: What an individual believes about the story behind God may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of an absolute truth.

* Proof that my Catholic belief may or may not be representative of the absolute truth behind God *
Premise: As a Catholic, I believe in the Catholic interpretation of Gods story.
Premise: What an individual believes about the story behind God may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of an absolute truth.
Conclusion: My Catholic interpretation of Gods story may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of the absolute truth of Gods story.




* Proof that other peoples interpretation may or may not be representative of the absolute truth behind God either. *
Premise: Other people have their own interpretations of Gods story.
Premise: What an individual believes about the story behind God may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of an absolute truth.
Conclusion: Other peoples interpretation of Gods story may be no representation, a partial representation, or a full representation of the absolute truth of Gods story.

* Proof that the elements that represent the absolute truth in other perceived truths could support the one perceived truth that is closest to the absolute truth (mythical prefigurement).* 
Premise: One perceived truth, or belief, may be the closest representation of an absolute truth.
Premise: Other perceived truths may also be partially be a representation of an absolute truth, and may also be partially false.
Conclusion: The parts of the other perceived truths that represent the absolute truth could support the one perceived truth that is the closest representation of an absolute truth (of Gods story).

* Proof that my Catholic belief may be the closest representation of the absolute truth to Gods story. *
Premise: My individual Catholic belief is a perceived truth.
Premise: Any perceived truth may be the closest representation of the absolute truth.
Conclusion: My individual Catholic belief may be the closest representation of the absolute truth (of Gods story).

* Proof that I am not an elitist, no matter what my beliefs are. *
Premise: Elitism is a belief that one person is better then another.
Premise: I understand that my beliefs may or may not be true, and that truth in beliefs doesnt make one person better then another.
Conclusion: No matter what my beliefs are, I am not an elitist.

There, have fun. I have provided Logical proofs for much of what I am saying. Now. prove me wrong. Logically, you cant. All you can do is argue over my propositions, which will require more proofs from other propositions, which you will undoubtedly argue, which will require additional proofs, etc. etc. etc. Well continue to argue over variables until we are blue in the face.

I dont feel like arguing for pages upon pages. Believe it or not, I have a life outside of MartialTalk to attend too.


----------



## someguy (May 22, 2004)

Here is the fun thing about logic and religion.
We are assuming that there is a God that created everything for now right?
God would be beyond that as he created it all.
Logic comes from stuff inside the system God created.
So how can something we use to understand what is around us be used to truely understand what goes beyond what is around us.  
If I explained that well then good but I'm not sure how well I did. I have said that better before and if it doesn't make much sense I'll try again some other time.There is humor in me using logic to explain why logic can't work.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 22, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I dont feel like arguing for pages upon pages. Believe it or not, I have a life outside of MartialTalk to attend too.


You say this after writing up a huge step-by-step explanation that you pass as a proof of, well, whatever it is you were trying to prove.  Besides, that's the neat thing about message boards: you can respond to things in your spare time.  

At any rate, you haven't proven that God exists or that the stories are true.  All you've really proven is that you can come up with a logical explanation of your beliefs if you make sufficient assumptions (which your "Propositions" are).  If you're trying to prove that God exists, for example, you have to refer to existence in your proof, and you haven't done that, just assumed something.  

But hey, this is just "arguing over propositions", right?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 22, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I dont feel like arguing for pages upon pages. Believe it or not, I have a life outside of MartialTalk to attend too.


That's how I feel. 
:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 22, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> You want something that seems that God has shown us signs in the stars. I've been reading stuff lately that astronomers have been able to trace back planetary alignments and such. When the Jerusalem was captured and all that back in A.D. 70, there was a sign 4 years prior. In A.D. 66 there was a meteorite shower that make a sign of a sword in the way it fell toward the earth. And the same thing happened in 1910, 4 years before WWI. And 4 years before WWII. And 4 years before the Israel war in the 60s or whenever it was. And the Gulf War. And the war on terrorism. It's all the same. I haven't seen the pictures, but it's been by noted scholars, one of them is Perry Stone Jr. It's amazing stuff. Read Unleashing the Beast, the last few chapters.
> 
> http://www.triumphpro.com/leonid_meteor_shower.htm
> http://www.britastro.com/sinai_leon...orts/frost.html


And if you even think about saying it's all false and true and I'm making it up, go look it up on google. I can say in so many places it has appeared. By noted Scholars. Say there is no noted references and I'll scream. LOL. I do have back up on it. All that happened with the stars is true. 

Anyways, have a good night. 

:asian: 

P.S. I'd really like to hear back about it, but I can only expect shere criticism saying that it's a hoax or just a coincidence. Maybe to you, but I find it awfully convincing that those meteor signs showed up 4 years before all those big wars everytime. And the recent junk that has happened on the Hebrew holidays? Just the Hebrew holidays?! Good night, Sleep tight, and don't let the logic bugs...err...bed bugs bite!


----------



## someguy (May 23, 2004)

If you look for it you will find it.  If you want I can write some porphecy and I can show it will happen tommorow.
I didn't really read these as I'm off to bed soon and have other stuff to do but here is my prophecy for tommorow.
Light shall come forth from the darkness and all shall begin anew.  Pain shall give way to joy and a sign shall apear in the heavens.  Look back tommorow and you may well see that the "prophecy" of mine is true.
Thats my opinion of prophecy and there interpretations.  I'm not saying that there couldn't be a prohpecy but I'm not so sure about very many prophecies being fufilled as of yet.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 23, 2004)

Well, that's not very good. You have to read it. Otherwise, you sound like your talking nonsense. I understand. Your tired. Your not thinking clearly. But that was so totally irrelevant.

:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (May 23, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Heh. Sounds like somebody's been reading Joseph Campbell.
> 
> Need it also be mentioned that Lucifer literally means 'bringer of light'??


Shhhhhh....Prometheus is sleeping....

Also keep in mind, in terms of plural 'gods' in relation to christianity that the "thou shalt not worship...." (heretic:  the 'biblical language' thing I think was an attempt to make it sound 'legit' by some) of the 10 commandments is a translation that in some forms is "no other gods"/"there is only one god, and his name is Allah..." is a declaration of belief - not to be taken as 'fact' as much as 'faith' in the form of an oath.

Heretic's point about personal religious faith taking more that just 'faith' is so true.  For those of us who choose to believe, it SHOULD be based on a foundation of ALL of the gifts/talents/experiences.... that we actively apply to personal growth and exploration.  

If you choose to see the current biblical canon as inspirational and divine, then the possible Jesus/Christ message of working from a focus of personal knowledge and spiritual health as a core foundation for a healthy community is evident.  The open criticism of the powers of the day was because the Jewish nation/people who were part of Jesus' community were, as Heretic pointed out, similar to people in the current day (and possibly through out all human time) because they only were interested in looking so far and so deep and they left the rest to the religious authority.

We each have to find our own PERSONAL way by applying intelligence, creativity, education, emotion, action, experience... in the right measure whether it is as a member of an organized church/religion or as an independent (interesting how so many religious praxis' translate to political terminology... and we wonder why these are the two taboo topics for harmony - because where the rubber meets the road they are the same thing.).

I am a firm believer that if the focus was on 'right mind/right action' (thanks for the Buddha reference - wasn't willing to bring it up right away) which for christians is usually phrased "faith in works" we could see a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hari Krishna, Hindi, Athiest (but still a moral, civic minded person - holy cow could that be an American/patriotic translation to avoid Church/State friction).......and so on all working in the same soup kitchen because the INTENT is to practice charity as a way of supporting the community not the intention of demonstrating superiority of a particular faith WITHIN a community.


----------



## qizmoduis (May 24, 2004)

Hey folks.  Just to interject:  I keep seeing these words "choose to believe" in many posts.  I can't see how choosing a belief is even possible.  A person cannot "choose to believe" he can fly.  Believing is not an act of volition.  I'm not an atheist because I chose to be one.  I'm an atheist because I don't believe - I don't have the state of mind that includes the possibility of the existence of deities.

Seriously.  How does somebody "choose to believe"?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 24, 2004)

No, you choose not to believe. Your Sacreligious. You don't want to believe. When it's decision time, you can change the worlds all around, but in the end it's the same thing whether you say it or not.

:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (May 24, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Hey folks. Just to interject: I keep seeing these words "choose to believe" in many posts. I can't see how choosing a belief is even possible. A person cannot "choose to believe" he can fly. Believing is not an act of volition. I'm not an atheist because I chose to be one. I'm an atheist because I don't believe - I don't have the state of mind that includes the possibility of the existence of deities.
> 
> Seriously. How does somebody "choose to believe"?


You choose to believe only if you consciously seek to educate yourself on options. If your chosen state of 'not belief' is because of conscious will and effort, you have chosen by your actions. Like I said "Faith in works" still fits because your chosen 'works' demonstrates your faith that there is no higher power. Read my first chosen signature quote and is explains my stance on this stuff.

Now, if it is a state of 'disbelief' because of a lack of exposure, education or understanding and it is more 'disinterest', 'disbelief'.... it is a negative structure/reactionary life because it is not an act of will but convenience.

IF this state of disbelief, from my POV, is as you say simply a 'state of mind' that does not include the existence of dieties then it is from a few possibilities but basically these two come to mind:

1.  Genetic memory and biological explanation (or simply put, according to you we are just not made that way and the rest of us are fooling ourselves)

2.  You are reasonably educated (by that I mean beyond religious indoctrination and actual theologically/philosophically trained to a degree) and have weighed all the options and have therefore CHOSEN this state of mind.

Even Carl Sagan, with all his Scientific sophistication, reached a point where he acknowledged that any assertion could only be proven to a point.  The rest of the journey to conviction had to be a leap of faith - no matter how large or small you allow it to be through knowledge and application.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

In response to Tulisan/Paul's uber-post, I have a few issues to address:

*1) There is a God?* This was one of the "propositions" (i.e., assumptions) I had the most problems with, namely because it was presented in such a "matter-of-fact", self-evidential fashion. 

There is a God, huh?? Which God?? The God of the Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims?? Is this God the same as Tao, Buddha Nature, Shunyata, and Atman --- or is it the exclusive province of us "enlightened" Westerners?? Is this the "One God" mentioned by Plato, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Plotinus, and scores of other non-Christian Western philosophers?? Is this the "all-god" (pantheus) cited in the myriad number of Mystery Schools in the ancient Mediterranean world?? Is this the "Great Spirit" referenced in various Native American traditions?? 

Silly boy, you didn't _honestly_ think Jews, Christians, and Muslims were the only monotheists on the planet, did'ya??

What is the nature of this God?? Is the God male, female, neuter-gendered, or none of the above?? Does this God exist inside the manifest universe, outside it, or both?? Is this God personal or non-personal?? Is this a God of Reason, as claimed by the Deists, or is this God fundamentally non-rational in orientation?? Does this God have human-like emotions?? If so, which ones?? Does this God interfere in the affairs of humanity?? Is this God immaterial, material, both, or neither?? What is this God's relationship with humanity??

"There is a God", huh?? That's about as vague as saying "there is philosophy" or "there is a truth".

*2) Elitism is the belief that one person is better then another.* Errrrr.... that is _a_ definition of elitism. By no means is it the only one. Nor was it the one I've been refering to throughout this thread.

The elitism I've been referring to is the basic nature of ethnocentrism/sociocentrism that beliefs like Mythical Prefigurement are based on: "We're right, you're wrong, and we don't need any stinkin' logic or evidence to prove it, nyah, nyah, nyah!!" That is also elitism.

*3) The truth to someones belief doesnt make him or her better or worse then another.* Errrr..... ok, I don't recall ever saying it did. 

I will say, however, that this particular point _is_ something that is traditionally claimed by most sects of Christianity --- that if you believe "correctly", you will go to "Heaven" and are "saved"; whereas, if you believe "incorrectly", you will go to "Hell" and are "damned". You may not personally believe it, Paul, but your religion does --- unless the Catholic church has renounced the notions of Heaven, Hell, and Christ being the "only way" in the last couple'a years.

*4) As a Catholic, I believe in the Catholic interpretation of Gods story.* Ummm..... ok, mind telling me _which_ "Catholic interpretation", exactly?? 

The Church has changed its take on the "ultimate truth" so many times that it can make your head spin --- which wouldn't be a problem if traditional Christian concepts like "only believing in this will get you into Heaven" weren't still around. Despite all these changes, the "Catholic interpretation" is still deeply schizoid --- a "God of Love" sends people to Hell?? And, why is it the "pre-Abraham" stuff is "probably mythical" but the "post-Abraham" isn't --- despite the fact that there is about equal evidence for both??

*5) No matter what my beliefs are, I am not an elitist.* I never claimed you were an elitist, I said your beliefs (specifically, Mythical Prefigurement) are elitist --- there is a difference. A very rational person, for example, can hold to extremely irrational beliefs and opinions. Happens all the time. The key is to differentiate between the _form_ (the content of the person's beliefs) and the _substance_ (why the person believes what they believe) of the position.

Come to think of it, I haven't really been talking that much about you at all --- I was specifically criticizing Mythical Prefigurement, and associated beliefs. Not any one individual.

*6) The joy of relativism.* This is what we could call epistemological relativism or egalitarianism (not to be confused with pluralism): "All truths are equally valid --- except for the one that claims this is so. It just happens to be the one I subscribe to."

Yup, we've kicked this dead-ender of a dead horse around enough without having to get into this kind of inane hypocrisy again...

*7) Prove me wrong!!* Sure thing: every single one of your "propositions" are unproven assumptions. A premise isn't logical just because you propose it --- it is logical because you support it with _logic_ or _evidence_. Personally, I'd have a bad taste in my mouth if most, if not all, of my "religious" beliefs were based on unproven assumptions. But, that's just me...

I could make a similar list, with "propositions" like "I am really a little horn beatle trapped in a human body", "The earth is flat", "We live inside a black hole", and similar nonsense --- and, I could go about forumalting "logical proofs" based on such premises, just as you did.

But, here's the rub: a logical proof, when based on illogical premises, is not logical. 

*8) Arguing over propositions will make us blue in the face.* Sorry, Paul, this was just one more unproven assumption on your part --- you should probably add it to your list or propositions and make a "logical" proof for it, too. 

Arguing and criticizing people's assumptions is not circular in nature, not if either party doesn't resort to mud-slinging tactics. I can give an example of this from any number of Ninpo boards on the 'net:

Dude 1: "I'm sorry, but Dux/Tengu/Koger ryu doesn't seem to have any evidence for its claims."
Dude 2: "Yeah, well, Hakamatsu doesn't either!! So, there!!"
Dude 1: "Ummm... we werent' talking about Hakamatsu. We were talking about Dux/Tengu/Koger."

Its a rather simple, and desperate, tactic: if someone criticizes your assumptions, then attack theirs. That's right, don't try and defend yours --- attack theirs. Now, tactics like that are circular. But simple debating assumptions in and of itself is not (something I can attest to from personal experience).

*9) I have a life, y'know!* So do I. This isn't particularly time-consuming --- its like an hour or two every other day. Its something I do in my spare time.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

In response to Someguy's posts...



> God would be beyond that as he created it all.



Not necessarily. I refer you to the ancient Christian notion of kenosis ("self-emptying") or the Hindu notion of advaita ("non-dualism"). There is also, of course, pantheism and monism.



> Logic comes from stuff inside the system God created.



How do we know "logic" doesn't come from "God"?? What if Hegel and the Deists were right, and we have a God of Reason??



> So how can something we use to understand what is around us be used to truely understand what goes beyond what is around us.



There is truth to this, in the sense that there are different "levels" of truth --- namely: prerational, rational, and transrational. I believe traditional Christian mysticism calls these the "eye of flesh", "eye of mind", and "eye of contemplation". 

I don't feel any of these are mutually exclusive, mind you, or that they don't all fit together.



> If you look for it you will find it. If you want I can write some porphecy and I can show it will happen tommorow.



Hee.... this is especially true if the "prophecy" was actually written _after_ the event(s) it claimed to predict (as most of the Biblical ones were). Hindsight, after all, is 20/20.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

In response to ShaolinWolf's posts...



> That's how I feel.



*laughs* That's rich.   

Weren't you the one that devoted three posts to patting Tulisan/Paul on the back, then apologizing for patting him on the back, then clarifying your apologizing, and then...

Let's face it, wolfman, you tend to ramble.



> And if you even think about saying it's all false and true and I'm making it up, go look it up on google.



Oh, and because its on the internet, it _must_ be true!! *laughs*



> I can say in so many places it has appeared.



I can also claim my pet dog can talk. Yippy-ki-yay.



> By noted Scholars. Say there is no noted references and I'll scream.



How about instead of saying "noted scholars", you actually give specific names and sources?? Y'know, that's like the 5th time I've asked for something like that....



> I'd really like to hear back about it, but I can only expect shere criticism saying that it's a hoax or just a coincidence.



Well... yeah.

If we even assume that any of these claims are for real, it still doesn't actually _prove_ anything. You obviously are very well-versed in the subtleties of the scientific method, but I refer you to the different between _causation_ and _correlation_. Proof of correlation is not proof of causation --- and, unless you can "prove" these things were sent by God hi'self, all you've got is correlation.



> Maybe to you, but I find it awfully convincing that those meteor signs showed up 4 years before all those big wars everytime.



Here's a question: how many "meteor signs" show up on dates that have absolutely no historical meaning at all?? Do you have any idea how often meteorites land on Earth??

This is like saying somebody is "psychic" because they get 1 out of 100 predictions right.   



> And the recent junk that has happened on the Hebrew holidays? Just the Hebrew holidays?!



Whoever said this only happens on the Hebrew holidays?? I don't recall seeing this claim at all. Selective memory, I suppose.



> But that was so totally irrelevant.



Gee. Someone writing "totally irrelevant" posts on this thread. Kettle and pot, wolfy, kettle and pot.



> Your Sacreligious.



I love little condemnations like this that fundamentalists always hurl around at people, without ever actually defining what they mean and why the person in question fits this description.

The perpetual absence of both logic and evidence. Surprised?? Nah.



> When it's decision time, you can change the worlds all around, but in the end it's the same thing whether you say it or not.



Translation: "You're wrong no matter what you say or what evidence and arguments you provide!! And, I'm right without needing any evidence at all just because I say so!!"

I see a trend. Laterz.


----------



## someguy (May 24, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> If you look for it you will find it.  If you want I can write some porphecy and I can show it will happen tommorow.
> I didn't really read these as I'm off to bed soon and have other stuff to do but here is my prophecy for tommorow.
> Light shall come forth from the darkness and all shall begin anew.  Pain shall give way to joy and a sign shall apear in the heavens.  Look back tommorow and you may well see that the "prophecy" of mine is true.
> Thats my opinion of prophecy and there interpretations.  I'm not saying that there couldn't be a prohpecy but I'm not so sure about very many prophecies being fufilled as of yet.


Ignore the bad spelling, as I wasn't fully paying attention as I wrote this.  But you should know it came true.  I woke up with a sore neck went over and hung out with friends and my pain became joy in a manner of speaking as it was replaced by it.  The whole light coming forth from darkness was the sun rising or me turning on a light.  Anyway you look at it my prophecy came true.  How about for y'all?


----------



## Cruentus (May 24, 2004)

For those of you who may not be familiar with classical logic and reasoning, I kept my inferences (set of premises) to only 2 premises to lead to one conclusion. I figured simple is best, because many of you might not be familiar with logic/reasoning proofs. 

But, some of you cleverly noticed that a _premise_ is based off things called _propositions_. A proposition is a statement that could be true or false. Example: "There is a God." [btw, this has nothing to do with who's interpretation of God we are going by; the proposition simply states that there is one]. Everything that I stated as an arguement is logical if you agree with the propositions.

Problem is, not everyone will agree with the propositions. So, someone will have to prove my propositions wrong, or I'll have to prove mine right through the use of premises and conclusions, based off a different set of propositions. These new propositions will have to be agreed upon, or proven as well. This process of arguing over propositions could go on for eternity.

Now remember, as heretic said, just because something is logical, that doesn't mean it is true. Propositions could be true or false. If they are true, then the arguement is true; if false, then arguement is false. However, the arguement will be logical in either case. Now if a premise is proven without question to be fallacious, then that is an ad logicam arguement, and is
a falacy. However, when dealing with "beliefs," we can't prove or disprove the propositions.

Because we are dealing with beliefs, and not material or scientific evidence, your own subconscious and conscious plays a major role. If your consciousness refuses to believe a proposition (such as "There is a God" or "Jesus was an actual human being"), then you can continue to argue propositions for eternity, and blame those who believe in such "nonsense" as being irrational for not providing "evidence" or "proof" for their beliefs. And, because so much has been written both for and against Catholicism and Christianity, I can gauruntee that you'll find evidence and sources on either to support whatever you want.

So...where do we go from here? If one persons consciousness refuses to believe the propositions of the other in an arguement, despite what evidence (material or interpretive) or arguements there are, then there will be no resolve to the conversation. If it was a formal debate, you would have time limits to make your arguements, and the panel would vote on the winner. Since we are on the internet, there could be no resolve to such a conversation. It will just go on until one person becomes tired and gives up, the results only being a lot of wasted time and energy.

So...where fo we go from here again? Believe what you want to believe...and that's it. If your beliefs are based on your own subconsious biases that you refuse work through, then that is your problem. If it is more important for you to be "better" then others rather then to actually seek truth for yourself, then that is your wasted journey. And it is just that...your journey. Do what you want with it.

Laterz


----------



## Cruentus (May 24, 2004)

Word of advise...you can't just make up definitions for words, or redefine words to fit your own agenda, and expect everyone else to believe in YOUR definitions.

Main Entry: elit·ism  
Pronunciation: A-'lE-"ti-z&m, i-, E-
Function: noun
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY 1 <elitism in choosing new members>
3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
- elit·ist   /-'lE-tist/ noun or adjective 

Main Entry: elite  
Pronunciation: A-'lEt, i-, E-
Function: noun
Etymology: French élite, from Old French eslite, from feminine of eslit, past participle of eslire to choose, from Latin eligere
1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM <the elite of the entertainment world> b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite -- Marilyn Chase> c singular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society <how the elite live -- A P World> <how the F.-speaking elite ... was changing -- Economist> d : a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence <members of the ruling elite> <the intellectual elites of the country> e : a member of such an elite -- usually used in plural <the elites ..., pursuing their studies in Europe -- Robert Wernick>
2 : a typewriter type providing 12 characters to the linear inch
- elite adjective 

Source (I picked it because it is on the net for you to look up for yourselves):

http://www.m-w.com/

Now, heretic, you can't just throw words like "elitism" or "ethnocentricism" and apply whatever definitions you want to them. I'm sorry, but, "We're right, you're wrong, and we don't need any stinkin' logic or evidence to prove it, nyah, nyah, nyah!" is not a definition of elitism, or even a good example of it. If you read what I have been saying, I am not even making the "I'm right your wrong" arguement. Regardless, believing that someone is correct over someone else is not elitism any way you cut it; you have to believe that one group/person is "better" then another for it to be elitism.

Anyways, you can't put whatever definition you want on a word and expect everyone else to follow your special definition.

PAUL


----------



## qizmoduis (May 24, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I will say, however, that this particular point _is_ something that is traditionally claimed by most sects of Christianity --- that if you believe "correctly", you will go to "Heaven" and are "saved"; whereas, if you believe "incorrectly", you will go to "Hell" and are "damned". You may not personally believe it, Paul, but your religion does --- unless the Catholic church has renounced the notions of Heaven, Hell, and Christ being the "only way" in the last couple'a years.



Actually, the Catholic position on salvation is a bit different than other christian denominations.  The Catholic position is that anyone can be saved provided they DEMONSTRATE a state of grace via works and behavior.  An actual affiliation with the church or even an actual adherence to doctrine is not specifically required (although it is preferred).

This is a relatively new doctrine, of course, to account for folks like Ghandi, etc.

I've probably missed a few details.  I'm sure Paul can dredge them up, since I've been out of circulation in church circles for over a decade.


----------



## someguy (May 24, 2004)

Well debateing the eixistance of a God wouldn't belong on this thread really.  Still I can't resist this one.  If there were no God gods what ever you want to say think of the implications that it would have you would live for nothing it wouldn't really matter if you did good or not beacause you simply would stop being soon enough.  Include Pascals wager argument and you have good reason to belivve in A God gods higher being what every you want to say Inn my opinion anyways.
Oh and Hertic you got me.  You defeated my arguments to some extent.  Of course for my belifes though my argument works but for others peoples views of God I supose it won't always work.  Silly me I allways forget some tiny little itsy bitsy thing like other people.  Sort of anyways but let us use Beothius.  He said there were 4 uh can't think of it really.  Man this is going to convince you guys ight here.  Anyways there issomething imagination reason and insight.  All living things have the first thing.  Imagination is possesed by all things animal and above humans and above have reason and God alone has divine insight.  So my thing works on Beothius.  Hegel and the Deists who cares about them and all the others you mentioned.  'm the only one that matters right? I think   therefore I am  but I don't know about you guys.  Do you think?  can you prove you think? Can you prove to me you exist?  I don't think so.  A person can only prove to themselves that they exist with Descartes Archemedian point.  Ok no that I have taken this of on a tangent peace out and I know I mispelled lots of stuf but I got to run so I can't fix it right now.


----------



## Cruentus (May 24, 2004)

Sorry for the multi-posts. Last one...

I love the way that people so often, who are not of my faith, like to dictate their misconceptions of what my faith believes without providing evidence that this is actually what my faith believes. So, let me clear a few things up.

For those of you curious, there is nothing in the Catholic Doctrine that says that a human being has the right to condem anyone to hell. So there isn't this sense of "If you don't believe what I believe then, you aren't 'saved' so you go to 'hell.' " In fact, we believe that ultimatily God sets the standards, and people choose through their actions whether or not they go to hell or heaven. "God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1037) 

So we believe that a person basically sends themselves to hell through their actions.

And again, no where does it say that we have the ability to judge whether or not someone will go to hell or not. 

If you'd like some good books on the subject, PM me, and I can dig up some titles that would be appropriate for you.

Have a good day!

PAUL :asian:



> I've probably missed a few details. I'm sure Paul can dredge them up, since I've been out of circulation in church circles for over a decade.


 Quiz...this post wasn't directed towards you, however. Thanks for your insight.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

In response to Tulisan/Paul's new set of posts...

*1) "There is a God." [btw, this has nothing to do with who's interpretation of God we are going by; the proposition simply states that there is one].* Gonna have to disagree with you there, Paul. In the context that you used this proposition, it most certainly did have to do with which "version" of God we're talking about --- you were clearly assuming this "God" had qualities and a nature familiar to traditional Western philosophy. Your entire duality of "God" and "man", as well as "perceived truth" and "absolute truth" was testament to this. No kenosis or advaita there.

*2) Everything that I stated as an arguement is logical if you agree with the propositions.* Basically, yeah. Problem is, in such instances, as to whether the propositions themselves are "logical" or not --- remember, we can make very logical proofs for rather illogical statements. Which, of course, brings us to the dichotomy of logic vs. truth.

*3) When dealing with "beliefs," we can't prove or disprove the propositions.* Says you. Beliefs are disproven all the time _in a rational-empirical sense_ (most "mythical" beliefs, of course, were not formulated for the purpose of satisying rational-empirical prerequisites, which is a rather modern collective phenomena anyway). Of course, there are some beliefs that just plain cannot be disproven (faith, or possibly intuition, is the basis of such notions here). Thus, it ultimately depends on the particular belief being questioned.

*4) Because we are dealing with beliefs, and not material or scientific evidence, your own subconscious and conscious plays a major role.* True as that may be, this is no excuse to just retreat into realms of "this is your belief, now let's not argue because arguing is bad", as has been implied. In fact, since we can't actually "prove" anyone's subconscious has anything to do with their beliefs here --- or, if it does, the specific influences --- it really has no real relevance to the current discussion at all.

*5) Since we are on the internet, there could be no resolve to such a conversation. It will just go on until one person becomes tired and gives up, the results only being a lot of wasted time and energy.* Translation: No one can question my beliefs on here, so please don't. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

I also notice that this "magic rule" you are relying on here doesn't seem to apply to your _belief_ that no debates could ever be resolved on the internet, or with discussions like these. Another performative contradiction, in which an arbitrary "universal rule" is posited but by some twist of fate doesn't apply to the person positing it.

I doubt anyone here actually believes these topics are going to be "resolved" online. That's not the point. Personally, I discuss these topics because I want to discuss them --- and I'm not going to shrink away every time someone questions my "propositions". I have no intention at all of "winning" or "resolving" anything --- just discussing.

*6) Now, heretic, you can't just throw words like "elitism" or "ethnocentricism" and apply whatever definitions you want to them.* Poppycock. One of the definitions of elitism that you listed was "consciousness of being or belonging to an elite". Mythical Prefigurement sure fits that bill, when we regard it sees all other religious doctrines as "pointing to", "prefiguring", or "proving" its own. In other words, they're all wrong and we're all right --- we're special, they're not; we have truth, they do not; our religion is truth, theirs is just an approximation or allusion to truth; ours is the summation and zenith of all human endeavor, theirs is just cannon fodder leading up to that point.

Explain to me how that is _not_ elitism?? Or irrational??

*7) If you read what I have been saying, I am not even making the "I'm right your wrong" arguement. * Then you oppose Mythical Prefigurement, as that would directly contradict its claims.

*8) I love the way that people so often, who are not of my faith, like to dictate their misconceptions of what my faith believes without providing evidence that this is actually what my faith believes.* Yup, silly me for relying on the Bible as a source for my claims. I forgot the Catholics don't use Bibles.   

I you want, I can dish out specific verses. 

*9) For those of you curious, there is nothing in the Catholic Doctrine that says that a human being has the right to condem anyone to hell. So there isn't this sense of "If you don't believe what I believe then, you aren't 'saved' so you go to 'hell.' " In fact, we believe that ultimatily God sets the standards, and people choose through their actions whether or not they go to hell or heaven. "God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1037) 

So we believe that a person basically sends themselves to hell through their actions.*

That all just sounds like wishy-washy political correctness to mine ears.

Catholics believe there is a Hell, but then claim they don't know how to avoid going there (a curious notion for people that submit themselves to Church every week). Then the notion of a "mortal sin" is thrown in, contradicting that statement.

In other words, "no one can tell if a human is going to Hell or not --- but if you commit a mortal sin, you ARE going to Hell. The Church, of course, knows what all these 'mortal sins' are." No, no, not contradictory at all.

I _can_ understand the basis of these pronouncements, of course --- its an attempt to adapt an archaic concrete-literal belief to modern humanistic and rationalistic philosophy. It just seems its gonna be while before this is actually done successfuly...

Laterz.


----------



## someguy (May 24, 2004)

Heretic show me any philosophy worth the paper it was written on that isn't hypocritical or just plain BS.  
Show me any religion that has no APPARENT contradictions
Ah the fun of me calling you a Heretic well thats the name you chose so I'm not really calling you a Heretic just saying your name.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

*Heretic show me any philosophy worth the paper it was written on that isn't hypocritical or just plain BS.*

Sure, thing --- Advaita Vedanta, Hegelian theory, Neoplatonism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shingon Mikkyo, Tendai Mikkyo, Valentinian Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Sri Aurobindo's system, Zen Buddhism, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Mahayana Buddhism as a whole, Philo Judaeus, Pythagoreanism, etcetera ad infinitum.

These are, of course, based on my own personal standards.

*Show me any religion that has no APPARENT contradictions*

I would point you to many of the Eastern wisdom traditions, in that they openly embrace paradox and non-duality. Meaning, they are honest about it. Christianity would probably do this, too, if the esoteric core of the religions wasn't almost systematically destroyed by centuries of political ambition (you can, of course, find nuggets of transcendental wisdom within Christianity from time to time --- these individuals are typically excommunicated or murdered, however).

*Ah the fun of me calling you a Heretic well thats the name you chose so I'm not really calling you a Heretic just saying your name.* 

If you say so.

Laterz.


----------



## someguy (May 24, 2004)

Pythagoreanism everything is made of numbers.  Well thats great right there.  Of course this is unless Im confusing that with something else.

How well do you know about _dvaita Vedanta, Hegelian theory, Neoplatonism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shingon Mikkyo, Tendai Mikkyo, Valentinian Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Sri Aurobindo's system, Zen Buddhism, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Mahayana Buddhism as a whole, Philo Judaeus, Pythagoreanism._  Are you sure you know them all well enough to say that they aren't full of BS or hypocritical.

As to the heretic comment its just amusing that you go by the name heretic.  This as we discuss matters of a religious nature.  Thats not really important though.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

> Pythagoreanism everything is made of numbers. Well thats great right there. Of course this is unless Im confusing that with something else.



That is an extremely dumbed-down and superficial interpretation of Pythagorean philosophy. Its about as inane as the notion that Platonism is just about weird Ideas up in the ether influencing the material world.



> How well do you know about dvaita Vedanta, Hegelian theory, Neoplatonism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shingon Mikkyo, Tendai Mikkyo, Valentinian Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Sri Aurobindo's system, Zen Buddhism, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Mahayana Buddhism as a whole, Philo Judaeus, Pythagoreanism. Are you sure you know them all well enough to say that they aren't full of BS or hypocritical.



I'm pretty familiar with most of them, actually --- I could even discuss specific concepts and terminology with you, if you wish. But, that would probably be better-suited for another thread.

In any event, its pretty arrogant to think that just because you believe all philosophies are "hypocritical or full of BS" that they actually are. You will find, in general, that most of the "BS" in philosophy comes from idiotic interpretations and translations --- and not from the philosophies themselves.



> As to the heretic comment its just amusing that you go by the name heretic. This as we discuss matters of a religious nature. Thats not really important though.



Actually, my username has a significance that anyone familiar with Greek gematria would give a knowing nod and chuckle to. Its kind of an inside joke, I suppose.

Laterz.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 24, 2004)

You are, simply, all wrong. Worship me.  I am the truth.

Wait a minute...oh, there's my meds. (hang on, now).

Better.  Where was I?  Oh yeah. LOVE THESE POSTS!!!

D.

Note to self: Avoid logging on while missing anti-psychotic medications. Makes me sound like that other guy...who says that thing...you know, about that stuff. Where am I?


----------



## someguy (May 25, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In any event, its pretty arrogant to think that just because you believe all philosophies are "hypocritical or full of BS" that they actually are. You will find, in general, that most of the "BS" in philosophy comes from idiotic interpretations and translations --- and not from the philosophies themselves.


Lets start with this one.  So you are calling me arrogent.  I find everything is full of contradictions.  This is my view I expressed it.  My saying something I think is true doesn't make me arrogent.  Other wise every one here is arogent.  I am generalizing about phillosophy but I generalize about alot of stuff as do you and every one else here.  Consider this for a second How many pages did Plato write.  So he expressed two views on some matters with out a doubt.  Then he couldn't act on both right.  So he probably was a hypocrite right.  I'm kind of tired right now so where this is going won't mak sense at all.  I'll just quit here for now and maybe in the morning or something.  Maybe I'll just move on.
One last thing is phillosophy a hobby or what with you Heretic?  Just curious no big deal if you don't answere.


----------



## loki09789 (May 25, 2004)

As far as "Catholic" points are being made, let me clarify something for interp of my own future posts.

There is no ONE Catholic Church as much as there is a Catholic Community of churches that all recognize the Pope as the earthly leader and who share a common foundation of sacraments and BASE ideologies. I don't know off the top of my head, but there are even churchs that are 'member's of the Catholic community that are exempt or excused from observing certain rituals/customs with permission from the Papal authority. There are also 'catholic' churches/communities that are not recognized by the Pontif folks, but are very spiritual and consider themselves Catholic. Right in our community of Buffalo, there is a single church being lead by non priests, unordained people who are beautifully inspired and very educated (in terms of Catholism) accomplishing incredible acts of charity in a tough part of town. THey petitioned for membership/recognition by the Catholic community (Roman catholic specifically) and are still waiting for final word.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Ukrainian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox.... Just a few, that doesn't even get into the Catholic Orders such as the Judists, Franciscans, Jesuits, the MUTITUDE of Nun orders devoted to Mary and the Nativity/Immaculate conception.....

Much like martial arts, there might be one name or a common set of fundamentals, but there are many different ways that organizations have claimed is "THE" way for things to be organized - without leaving the boundaries of Catholicism.

Makes it hard to say that 'WE believe" or "ALL YOU folks" about anything.

I would say that Someguy and Heretic are the only ones speaking exclusively from a 'personal set of values' that is based on what has come before. I have put myself in a strange position as a member of this Catholic community where I have to qualify things by saying that "I believe this" which at times is distinct from what "The Church" (Meaning the Roman Catholic maintstream) teaches. Heretics point about the duality/paradoxical nature of life/religion is true about christianity:  MOST christian organizations/interpretations do not do a very good job of outlining/reconciling the duality or paradoxs - but that is because of the very patchwork asimilatory nature of the belief.  

Plus the dogma, canon law and set customs of Christianity are partially motivated through history by a desire to control the earthy body of members MORE than leading people to spiritual fulfillment/realization.  spirituality/self actuallization is the motivation of the individual person and is not the primary interest of the 'church' (who ever you want to plug in).  I remember coming across stories of Buddhist monks in little Vietnamize villages who tried to convince the people that US soldiers were demons and not there to help them/protect them.  Without diverging into a political conversation, the priest was seemingly intimidated by the possibility of loosing his influence over the villiagers to the modern medical and technical 'corruptions' that the soldiers brought.  One point was about a dieing child who could/should have been saved by a simple bar of soap and a change in hygene practices.  The priest was afraid that if the family adopted the western values/beliefs around that bar of soap that they would loose the lesson/message they were suppose to learn through the experience..... WOW!  A lesson at the expense of a child's life.  Even Abraham was spared the actual act in the bible (of course there are far more children slain,destroyed, enslaved... in the BIble so it is again the paradox).

If anyone knows of some of these small or less well known orders/churches that are part of the Catholic community I would love to learn more.


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

> If anyone knows of some of these small or less well known orders/churches that are part of the Catholic community I would love to learn more.



I had a list at one time...it was HUGE. If I can dig it up again, I'll let you know!

 :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2004)

To someguy....

*Lets start with this one. So you are calling me arrogent.*

Technically, I referred to the content of your beliefs as "arrogant".

*I find everything is full of contradictions. This is my view I expressed it. My saying something I think is true doesn't make me arrogent. Other wise every one here is arogent.*

Ummm.... nice try, but no cigar.

Making a sweeping generalization about an entire field of knowledge is about as close to "arrogant" as you can get, particularly when said generalization is that the entire field is "full of BS". Statements like that are usually enforced by an extreme ignorance of the subject matter --- similar to how religious conservatives tend to classify science as a whole, and how many so-called "hard scientists" tend to regard sociology and psychology.

Tell me, have you read _every_ philosophical work out there?? Do you have _any_ basis whatsoever for condemning _every_ philosopher's work as being "full of BS"??

*I am generalizing about phillosophy but I generalize about alot of stuff as do you and every one else here.* 

I don't generalize about entire disciplines and fields of knowledge. You saying "philosophy is full of hypocrisy" is about as valid as me saying "biology is full of mamby-pamby fluff that has no evidence". Its inane to an extreme.

*Consider this for a second How many pages did Plato write. So he expressed two views on some matters with out a doubt. Then he couldn't act on both right. So he probably was a hypocrite right.* 

Invalid assumptions with no support whatsoever. I challenge you to prove anything you just claimed.

Also, expressing two views on a single matter is not necessarily "hypocrisy" --- it may be a pluralistic attempt at holism.

*One last thing is phillosophy a hobby or what with you Heretic? Just curious no big deal if you don't answere.*

Technically, philosophy is everybody's hobby --- even if they don't have one. 

If you must know, I'm studying psychology in college. I draw upon psychological data and research in support of some of my philosophical ideas quite often.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2004)

In response to Loki/Paul...

*There is no ONE Catholic Church as much as there is a Catholic Community of churches that all recognize the Pope as the earthly leader and who share a common foundation of sacraments and BASE ideologies. I don't know off the top of my head, but there are even churchs that are 'member's of the Catholic community that are exempt or excused from observing certain rituals/customs with permission from the Papal authority. There are also 'catholic' churches/communities that are not recognized by the Pontif folks, but are very spiritual and consider themselves Catholic. Right in our community of Buffalo, there is a single church being lead by non priests, unordained people who are beautifully inspired and very educated (in terms of Catholism) accomplishing incredible acts of charity in a tough part of town. THey petitioned for membership/recognition by the Catholic community (Roman catholic specifically) and are still waiting for final word.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Ukrainian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox.... Just a few, that doesn't even get into the Catholic Orders such as the Judists, Franciscans, Jesuits, the MUTITUDE of Nun orders devoted to Mary and the Nativity/Immaculate conception.....*

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. Very informative.  :asian: 

*Makes it hard to say that 'WE believe" or "ALL YOU folks" about anything.*

I don't believe I made any claims like that. If it was construed that way, I apologize for my lack of clarification. I was simply addressing specific points that Tunisan/Paul brought up (in which he _did_ cite Church statements to support).

*Heretics point about the duality/paradoxical nature of life/religion is true about christianity: MOST christian organizations/interpretations do not do a very good job of outlining/reconciling the duality or paradoxs - but that is because of the very patchwork asimilatory nature of the belief.*

I believe this is true, but I also believe it is more than that. I feel Christianity as a whole, and more "open-minded" organizations like the Catholic Church in particular, are in the midst of a change, a modernization (if you will). Remember Bishop Spong's book "Christianity Must Change or Die"?? I think it really addressed a lot of the issues promptly. 

*Plus the dogma, canon law and set customs of Christianity are partially motivated through history by a desire to control the earthy body of members MORE than leading people to spiritual fulfillment/realization. spirituality/self actuallization is the motivation of the individual person and is not the primary interest of the 'church' (who ever you want to plug in). *

This I would _definately_ agree with.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

> Thanks for the clarification, Paul. Very informative.



I agree. Thanks Paul M.!



> I believe this is true, but I also believe it is more than that. I feel Christianity as a whole, and more "open-minded" organizations like the Catholic Church in particular, are in the midst of a change, a modernization (if you will). Remember Bishop Spong's book "Christianity Must Change or Die"?? I think it really addressed a lot of the issues promptly.



I'd have to agree again. I think that Christianity is moving towards being more "openminded." It is my belief that it started off that way, but started to get wierd when Government entities (with the help of some people in the church leadership) said, "Hey, this Christianity stuff would be a GREAT tool to control the masses!" Perhaps many of us are going back to our roots, so to speak.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2004)

*I think that Christianity is moving towards being more "openminded." It is my belief that it started off that way, but started to get wierd when Government entities (with the help of some people in the church leadership) said, "Hey, this Christianity stuff would be a GREAT tool to control the masses!" Perhaps many of us are going back to our roots, so to speak.*

Well, the thing we all have to understand is that the first three centuries of Christian history were typified by an _extreme_ diversity and pluralism of belief and practice --- exponentially moreso than anything we see in Christianity today. This was probably due to a number of factors --- the Hellenistic climate of religious tolerance (prior to Constantine) was probably a big influence. I would also attribute this to the rather "open-ended" doctrines of the Gnostics, who would freely formulate new Gospels in a fashion akin to the Jewish practice of midrash. There is little doubt that Gnosticism of various stripes was the most widespread and pervasive expression of Christianity --- which accounted for "the" religion's diversity.

This, of course, all changed with the inception of literalist Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Constantine. The literalist school in Rome, of course, seemed to always have had this as their goal --- apologetics like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian seem to support the notion of the local bishop having an almost totalitarian-like control over his "flock". This was, of course, juxtaposed to the typical Gnostic position.

I don't really think the current movements of modernization, liberalization, and open-mindedness in Christianity have much to do with "returning to our roots" (although they may certainly claim that, and they undoubtedly will) as opposed to trying to adapt their traditional religion with modern values and worldviews. Groups like the Catholic Church and the Unitarian-Universalists seem to be the major proponents of such thought.

If Christianity were actually returning to its "roots", then guys like Valentinus, Johannes Eckhart, and Origen would be made into saints. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

I'd agree that if we are "returning to our roots" that it would be more to fit in with the modern worldview, unfortunatily.

 :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (May 25, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I'd agree that if we are "returning to our roots" that it would be more to fit in with the modern worldview, unfortunatily.
> 
> :asian:


I don't know if it would necessarily be unfortunate from my POV.  If the spirit of the faith (plug in your own choice) is intact but the body changes because of environment, I can flow with that.  I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole.  R.Catholic authorities are running into the same problems as the Constantinian church - voluntary followers.  Change is inevitable, partly because - even if they don't like to say it - PROCESS THEOLOGY does influence Christian belief.

Also, with the shift away from Church/State combinations in general, R.Catholic Papal authorities are also adjusting from Canon LAWS to control the masses and are attempting to be more of a facilitator of and a promotor/nurturer of personal and spiritual relationships for the people with God.  It is a large, clunky body politic, but I think R.C. Church is finally recognizing that they are a religious leadership body for the purpose of spiritual development and not a political body of leadership (except possibly on the same level as any other steering committee/special interest group).

Some have even said that the Roman/Holy Roman Empire never really died, it just lost a geographical nation and lives on through the Roman Catholic Church... I can see that to a degree.

Heretic,

My point was not directed at any slight or implied prejudice.  I was noticing that there was some generalization in general (groan;() that might create some misrepresentation/misunderstanding for any further discussion.  Words and definitions/ideas need to be very clear in these types of discussions.  It is really hard to understand someone when you are working from definition/idea X when the messenger is trying to communicate definition/idea Y.

One point of constant dispute is celibacy and clergy.  For Christianity at least, somewhere there was in history some guy who started rejecting the earthly aspects of his life in order to touch the spiritual and that included isolation (monistary life), silence, celibacy, simple foods, constance prayer..... and so on.  After a while he got some groupies who wanted to join him (ruins the whole isolation idea doesn't it) BUT this was not implied, ordered or even hinted at in the Bible or by New Testament sentiments.  It is, to the best of my knowledge, something I like to call a 'christian folkism' or something that after time people inject into christianity but isn't originally part of the roots.

I am pretty sure Heretic could expound upon the number of Gnostic practices and customs that the R.Catholic church as assimilated - like the stations of the cross for example - because they were things that the masses found popular and the Roman based powers had to "go along to get along" by including or risk losing followers or having to charge a huge number of the people with heracy for still observing these customs.

One of the practical, functional and political benefits of celibacy is that the Church as politic doesn't have to worry about jilting families over inheritances of properties and gains that the priest gained over the course of his life.  There is no survivor benefits to worry about.  Most/all priests of power where noblemen as well, so by instituting a series of religious oaths that denounce the nobleman's felial ties, it also reduces (in theory, but definitely not in practice.  Who were the Medici brothers and what jobs did they have in Rome?) the influence of political influence over religion.... okay so it didn't work very well that way.

There seems to be a small, but practical minded group, within the Catholic orders who are for allowing priests the right to be married.  The alternative is to expand the powers and sacraments that Deacons can preside over within the rules of the Church.

Personally, I don't see any problem with a married priest.  Cultures, at least generally, have moved away from the formal classism of aristocracy and such.  Life insurace, probate laws and other practical financial structures would control some of the old practical issues since churches are registered as "not for profit organizations/business" and are subject to EEO laws that oversee such things.

Historically, I have my suspicions that it was a way of putting a very "GREEK" stamp on the Constantinian Christianity because it elevated the status of male friendship/relationships over male/female relationships.  Greeks have a very love/hate relationship with the marriage/sex aspect of mixed gender relationship.  Remember who opened Pandora's box?  Cupid's arrows originally were seen as poisonous and a curse and painful NOT the Valentine/Disney-fied version that we think is so cute now.  "Romantic" love was a curse and a disease that deprived folks of sanity and reason.


----------



## heretic888 (May 26, 2004)

In response to Loki/Paul:

*If the spirit of the faith (plug in your own choice) is intact but the body changes because of environment, I can flow with that.*

Hrmmmm.... personally, I don't feel this is really the "spirit of the faith" as opposed to the "spirit" of the likes of rationalism, humanism, and pluralism (the ecumenical movement is a good example of this). Not that any of that is a bad thing --- I think it is a positive change pretty much anyway you look at it.

However, I would also add that all these are changes in the _exoteric_ forms of the religion, and not in the _esoteric_ substance underlying it. I still feel that the esoteric core of most of Western religion is sorely lacking (most probably due to traditional historical attitudes regarding mysticism).

*I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole.*

I would disagree with this. I think the shift is toward modernization and pluralism. 

A shift toward the "spirit" of the early churches as a whole would see the canonizing of, say, the Gospel of Thomas and see individuals like, say, Meister Eckhart, Valentinus, and Origen be made into saints. It would also see a more open attitude toward mysticism and contemplative practice as a whole (which, as it stands now, is generally relegated to monastic settings and traditions).

*R.Catholic authorities are running into the same problems as the Constantinian church - voluntary followers.*

I don't think so. The current Catholic church seems to be leaning toward pluralism --- the Constantinian church was the exact opposite. The major problem of the Constantinian church was that Christianity was not a set, monolithic tradition as they fervently wished to believe; the major threat to their perceived "monolism" was the pluralistic community of dissidents, heretics, gnostics, and so forth that made up "Christianity" at the time.

*Also, with the shift away from Church/State combinations in general, R.Catholic Papal authorities are also adjusting from Canon LAWS to control the masses and are attempting to be more of a facilitator of and a promotor/nurturer of personal and spiritual relationships for the people with God. It is a large, clunky body politic, but I think R.C. Church is finally recognizing that they are a religious leadership body for the purpose of spiritual development and not a political body of leadership (except possibly on the same level as any other steering committee/special interest group).*

Perhaps. But, I feel the major problem is that most leaders within the Catholic church (or any ecclesiastical organization, for that matter) don't really understand much of "spiritual development" to begin with (not outside the monastic settings, that is). 

Real personal development, particularly of the spiritual flavor, is not simply a changing or adjusting of one's beliefs --- as has been traditionally thought. It is an actual _evolution_ of the substance of one's thinking. Not simply the form. You may believe in Jesus as Lord, the Golden Rule is a good idea, and God loves all his children. But if the basis, substance, and reasoning behind those beliefs are something along the lines of "cuz the Bible tells me so" or "Christianity is right, everyone else is wrong", then you aren't a particularly highly developed or "spiritual" person.

*My point was not directed at any slight or implied prejudice. I was noticing that there was some generalization in general (groan;() that might create some misrepresentation/misunderstanding for any further discussion. Words and definitions/ideas need to be very clear in these types of discussions. It is really hard to understand someone when you are working from definition/idea X when the messenger is trying to communicate definition/idea Y.*

Meh, nothing to worry about. 

*One point of constant dispute is celibacy and clergy. For Christianity at least, somewhere there was in history some guy who started rejecting the earthly aspects of his life in order to touch the spiritual and that included isolation (monistary life), silence, celibacy, simple foods, constance prayer..... and so on. After a while he got some groupies who wanted to join him (ruins the whole isolation idea doesn't it) BUT this was not implied, ordered or even hinted at in the Bible or by New Testament sentiments. It is, to the best of my knowledge, something I like to call a 'christian folkism' or something that after time people inject into christianity but isn't originally part of the roots.*

Errrrr.... sorta, but not really.

One of the distinctive differences between many Christian sects and the typical Jewish ones was the position of family, home, material possessions, marriage, and so forth. Judaism is, typically, a very _ethnic_ and very _familial_ religion --- honor thy father and mother, trace your lineage to David, marriage is good, you're born a Jew, there's no real problem with divorce, and so forth. Christianity, on the other hand, began to embrace a more Pythagorean and Cynic approach --- give up all one's possessions and family to follow 'The Way'. And, that's in the New Testament, any way you slice it. I seem to recall Paul even saying something about how great cellibacy is.

This was most definately an influence from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time --- Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Cynicism, and Stoicism all contain sentiments like this. Judaism, outside of Pagan-influenced "solar cults" like the Essenes and Therapeutae, did not traditionally contain these sentiments. Paul, who is especially influenced by Plato, talks about this stuff all the time in his genuine epistles.

There were exceptions, of course --- such as Gnostic sects like the Ebonites and Nazarenes, who were extremely pro-Jewish and pro-Torah in orientation. Groups like the Simonians and Marcionites seemed to be on the opposite end of the spectrum (very much disliking the Law).

In actual practice, however, most Gnostics and Christians had families, of course. I believe most of this was generally limited to monastic communities, following the example of Pythagoras (yup, he had the first real "monastery" in the West).

*I am pretty sure Heretic could expound upon the number of Gnostic practices and customs that the R.Catholic church as assimilated - like the stations of the cross for example - because they were things that the masses found popular and the Roman based powers had to "go along to get along" by including or risk losing followers or having to charge a huge number of the people with heracy for still observing these customs.* 

Well, Gnostic in the sense of Pagan Gnosticism and not necessarily Christian Gnosticism.

The truth is a lot of those "Pagan" ideas were part of Christianity long before Constantine ever showed up. I mean, c'mon --- virgin birth, eat and drink the God to become immortal, death and resurrection, water into wine?? Sheer Mystery school stuff, through and through. The typical Protestant accusation of Catholicism is that the Church "added" a lot of Pagan ideas to Christianity (such as All Hallow's Eve), but this is but a half-truth --- Christianity had a lot of Pagan ideas to begin with. The very essence of the faith are essentially Mystery School forumulations.

Of course, "Pagan" elements continued to be incorporated throughout the centuries --- particularly whenever Christianity was brought to a foreign land (as any "Celtic Christian" can readily explain to you).

*There seems to be a small, but practical minded group, within the Catholic orders who are for allowing priests the right to be married. The alternative is to expand the powers and sacraments that Deacons can preside over within the rules of the Church.*

Well.... what needs to be understood is that most of this "matter is bad, the flesh is sinful" comes from exaggerations or misunderstandings. A lot of early Christians, particularly Gnostics, definately believed this stuff --- but, it was essentially an extreme pronouncement of formless mysticism, common to many traditions of the time (such as Theravada Buddhism). 

You know: the world is evil, all life is suffering, we're in samsara, Satan is the "god of this world", the flesh does not inherit the Kingdom, the phenomenal world is an illusion (maya), yadda yadda yadda --- of course, there _was_ a point to all that. If you focus _only_ on the "world of matter", then you can't possibly transcend suffering (so to speak). These traditions tended, of course, to just go in the opposite direction.

A few centuries later, a balance began to show up: Nondualism. Y'know --- "Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form". Plotinus' embracing of the Ascending and Descending currents of the Godhead. Valentianinism would probably be the best Christian example. Basically, with formless mysticism, the world of Form was rejected for the world of Spirit (thus the strict dualism, or monism at times) ---- with nondual mysticism, it was realized that the world of Form was an _expression_ of the world of Spirit, not just some illusory bupkis.

How does this translate to modern Catholic pratice?? Dunno, most priests aren't mystics and don't meditate --- so it really shouldn't matter to them much.

*Historically, I have my suspicions that it was a way of putting a very "GREEK" stamp on the Constantinian Christianity because it elevated the status of male friendship/relationships over male/female relationships. Greeks have a very love/hate relationship with the marriage/sex aspect of mixed gender relationship. Remember who opened Pandora's box? Cupid's arrows originally were seen as poisonous and a curse and painful NOT the Valentine/Disney-fied version that we think is so cute now. "Romantic" love was a curse and a disease that deprived folks of sanity and reason.* 

Yeah, but this kind of stuff was in effect long before Constantine came on the scene. Just look at the bedrock layer of the "Gospel of Q" (Q1), or to the authentic letters of Paul. This kind of "anti-matter, anti-family" stuff is all over the place. 

The simple truth is that Christianity of its various forms was _based_ on Hellenistic philosophy and religion (despite the rather silly pronouncements of Diabolical Mimicry and Mythical Prefigurement) --- both in ethics and in myths. Which, really, doesn't come as any surprise --- groups like the Therapeutae, or Alexandrian Jews as a whole (we really have to reject the idea that Christianity was "born" of Palestine in favor of places like Syria, Antioch, and Alexandria), were definately going towards integrating such ideas with Judaism. Just read some Philo Judaeus and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (May 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In response to Loki/Paul:
> 
> *I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole.*
> 
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

*Good points Heretic.*

Thank ye kindly.  :asian: 

*As far as Pluralism> I would love to see the Catholic Community 'allow' or accept the other gospel interpretations to be open for exploration. Heck, even now certain "Apocryphal" texts are used during Mass and Celebrations in limited ways and the "Apocrypha" is included in the Catholic version of the published bible - but more as an academic add on than for reall intellectual consumption.*

Given the recent popularity of the Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised to see it being the Apocrypha most frequently used. Still, I doubt many would actually comprehend the actual messages of the text.

*During my adult confirmation classes, there were more layman advice on spiritual matters than Clergy - which is not as helpful as far as I am concerned because of the lack of depth or sophistication in the training/education on the material that is necessary even WITHIN the faith let alone between interpretations and organizations.*

Yes, this was one of the points I was trying to make. 

Really, though, if you aren't being instructed to at least _consider_ taking up some form of meditative practice or contemplative prayer (and, oh yes, there are oodles of Christian examples of these to draw from --- meditation isn't just "a Buddhist thing" as opposed to "a human thing"), then I seriously question the validity of any "spiritual advice" being dished out. Beliefs are nice, and "good works" are important --- but they don't ultimately transform your consciousness.

*I have only heard/read about the Gospels of Thomas (as in one of the original 12 or is it just a follower later in the history?) and Mary through Discovery Channel/Magazine and History channel specials so the commentary on it was general and interprative instead of specific... oh well. I remember that the movie STIGMATA was partially based on the uproar of the Gospel of Thomas in contrast to the traditional views that made the Church the Conduit of CHRIST so to speak. Thomas' gospel, from the interps that I have heard, seems to be more 'natural' almost 'eastern' Zen/Taoist in message. "Lift up a rock and I am there..." type of message. As if Jesus was a Self actualized/Buddha figure. Interesting and worth a look at as far as I am concerned. The Mary Gospels I have no exposure to and only know of the existence.*

Okay.... the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to "Thomas Didymus" (Thomas the Twin), who we are left to assume is the disciple in the Gospel story. My personal opinion is, of course, there was no "Thomas from the Gospel story", but that's beside the point.

The Gospel of Thomas is, essentially, a list of sayings attributed to Jesus --- similar to what the "Gospel of Q" is hypthesized to be. It is devoid of any narrative content or "story". Just wisdom teachings and sayings. It should be noted that Thomas shares over a third of its sayings with Q, so they aren't all completely alien compared to the sayings found in the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Thomas is looked at differently by different scholars, but it is currently believed to be just as old if not older than the canonical Gospels --- and it is believed to have some sort of relationship with Q, as well. Some postulate that the Gospel of Thomas may actually be one of the sources of some of the Gospels --- this has been especially suspected of the Gospel of John, for example. In any event, many scholars are beginning to regard the Thomas gospel as being just as "authentic" as the accepted Canon.

If you are interested in the actual CONTENT of the sayings (there are 114 in all), here is a link:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

I don't know very much about the gospels attributed to Mary Magdalene, so I can't really comment on those.

*On the point of Church promoting spiritual development. Actually it has been my experience as an adult confirmationist (maybe the older mind is more ready to 'recieve' so to speak vs. the childhood/early teen mentallity when everything gets mixed together and the wisdom is ignored with the "eat your beans" messages) that the sacraments are really more thoroughly explained and practiced as tools of spiritual development. *

Oh, I definately feel the Sacraments _can be_ a useful tool for spiritual development. I think Wilber sums up my position fairly well in on of his earlier works:

   "Put it a different way: a given rite, ceremony, sacrament, or myth can function as a _symbol_, in which case it evokes higher levels of self and reality, or as a mere _sign_, in which case it simply confirms and strengthens the same mundane level of self and reality. That is, a given rite or sacrament can serve as a symbol of _transformation_ or as a sign of _translation_. The first function is properly religious (esoteric), and works to undermine or dissolve the self in God's consciousness; whereas the second function is merely subsitutive, and serves to perpetuate and strengthen the self-sense by securing magical substitutes for God. 

The same rite, the same myth, the same motifs can and do act in both capacities, depending largely on the pyschological state of the individual who confronts them and the understanding he brings to them. Thus, for example, the Christ figure is, to a mystic, a perfect embodiment and symbol of one's timeless and selfless Essence, whereas to the fortified Christian ego --- which, as is the nature of all egos, is in flight from death --- the Christ figure is a mere sign of the separate self's hoped-for immortality, a sign of the self's going on forever and forver. Prayer for the former is contemplative; for the latter, petitionary. In the same way, today the Catholic Mass --- its physical paraphernalia, its ceremonies, its rites, its dress, its symbols, and its wording --- is really meaningful, symbolic, and transformative for only a few individuals. The rest go through the motions as an insurance policy --- to cover their bets on immortality."

(Ken Wilber, _Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution_, p. 134 -135)

He continues:

   "Take, as the supreme Western example, the great exoteric themes of Christianity: the three-day-dead-and-resurrected god, born of a virgin who is the mother as well as the bride of god, the sacrificial lamb who _had_ to die in order to ensure new life, whose body we eat and whose blood we drink, whose sacrifice ensures the future...

All of those are exoteric, pagan, Great Mother holdovers --- all you have to do to arrive at a perfect Great Mother ritual, as it was actually practiced, is to really kill someone. And, right at the point in the Catholic Communion, where the wafer and wine are served, simply roast and eat the victim instead (an example of which we quoted earlier). But those same sacraments, without murder, and carried out in a self-sacrificial frame, are perfectly legitimate _symbols_ of transformation and _aids_ to transcendence. Such, exactly, is the _esoteric_ impact of the true Catholic Mass, and such, exactly, is the esoteric meaning of its symbols. Christ is sacrificed (the lamb), he dies to his separate-self (the Crucifixion), is reborn to Ascend to Heaven (Actual Transcendence); the eating of the his body (bread and wine) is a comm-union that initiates one into that higher Mystical Body or Ultimate Union, which likewise demands the death of one's own separate self so that 'not I, but Christ' may reign.* 

*[Endnote: 'I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me' (Galatians 2:20). 'Christ died for your sins' means 'Christ died to his separate self so as to relieve you of yours'. This, surely, is what Christ meant by 'No man can be my disciple who hateth not his own soul' (Luke 14:26). As Blake put it, 'I will go down to self-annihilation and Eternal Death; Lest the Last Judgment come and find me unannihilate; And I be seiz'd and giv'n into the hands of my own selfhood.']

   All of those symbols, and the rites and ceremonies associated with those symbols, are esoterically meant to function as _supporters of contemplation_ or symbolic transformers. In that capacity, they are outward and visible formsof inward and spiritual truths. They address a Transcendent Divinity --- Great God, Great Goddess --- and not a biological, naturic, magic-mythic Great Mother.

Unfortunately, of course, the esoteric underside of Christianity has all but vanished in the West. Thus, most Christians today are exoteric worshippers; that is, most Christians actually practice, in large measure, nothing more than holdovers from pagan Great Mother rituals. The 'fundamentalists', especially, are committed to _literal_ interpretations of the Bible; i.e., they recognize only signs, not symbols. No wonder that fundamentalist Christianity (along with fundamentalist Islam) has historically been the religion most willing to actually consummate their pagan Great Mother rituals and go ahead and murder, in blood sacrifice, any who disagreed with them. Holy war is nothing but thinly rationalized Great Mother worship, and the exoteric Christians and Muslims, without any doubt whatsoever, have killed more in the name of a "divinity" than any other peoples in history. The only thing bloodier than a Christian holy war or a Muslim holy war is a Christian holy war on Muslims (or vice versa). And don't say this is a necessary result of religion per se; in Buddhism's 2,500-year history, it has fought not one single religious war."

(Ken Wilber, _Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution_, p. 136-137)

Sorry for the space there, but I think that sums up my views on the issue perfectly.  :asian: 

*Also, within the view of Catholisism, service to others is an exercise and a way of putting yourself into spiritually fulfilling and challenging positions. So, I guess the idea for Catholics is really that spiritual realization is a combination of 'works' and 'knowledge'.*

Oh, I think moral practice is important --- and it is definately emphasized in religions like Buddhism (I refer you to the Eightfold Path), too. But, ultimately, these are seen as preparations or stages to meditative awareness --- and not a substitute for it.

*Unfortunately, there is such a long tradition of 'pray, pay and obey' that many Catholics have been trained to be apathetic about their personal spiritual growth and have given up ownership. Time will tell if the shift during Vat. II will change that.*

I guess we'll see. 

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2004)

I talked to God and god said "Hey!
I've got a lot of things to say
write it down this very day
and spread the word in every way."
I talked to God and here¹s the deal:
He said to floss between each meal
Drive with both hands on the wheel
and on the first date dont cop a feel
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said nothing
that we shouldn't already know
shouldnt already know
And talked to God and here's what he said:
"wear a helmet on your head
when you ride a bike instead
or you'll crash and end up dead."
I asked God for the Holy Word
ageless wisdom never heard
He just said to feed the birds
love your pets, clean up their turds
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said nothing
that we shouldn't already know
shouldnt already know
I talked to God and God said "John,
I let them kill my only son
and my creation's so undone
that I can't help out everyone
But if you¹re looking for advice
you don't need to ask me twice
start with the basics: just be nice
and see if that makes things all right."

-Uninvited


----------

