God

[Nightingale]

no... I said there is quite a bit of historical documentation from the time. Some of it mentiones a Jesus of Nazareth. Most of it doesn't. The information (that I've found so far) merely confirms his existence and doesn't go into any great detail about his life.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

On Jesus' existance: I saw a documentary recently on either the History chanel or the Learning Chanel...was -very- interesting. I've been trying to find out hte name as I tapes everything -except- the title. heh. It portrayed him as more of a rebel than we had thought, and gave the thought that Judas did not betray him, but was doing what Jesus has asked him to do.

That the reason for Judas' suicide wasn't guilt for betrayal, but something else.


Anyone here watch those chanels and can shed some light on it?

Also, I think Nemoy did an 'In Search Of' special back in the '70s that took a look at it.

There was also some discovery recently of something...I think it was listed as belonging to 'James, Brother of Jesus' or something like that...

 

[Pakhet]

Originally posted by arnisador
If you mean to say that there's quite a bit of documentation confirming his existence, I disagree--outside of the Bible, it's principally one throw-away comment by (Flavius) Josephus, isn't it? E.g., from here:

I'm not even sure you can count that even. According to my "The Works of Josephus" (complete and unabridged) he lived A.D. 37 - c100 - so he wasn't there either.

Lisa

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
no... I said there is quite a bit of historical documentation from the time. Some of it mentiones a Jesus of Nazareth.

Is there another extra-biblical account of the existence of Jesus other than Josephus'? I consider the recent alleged burial box of James his brother to be decidely unconfirmed.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Pakhet
I'm not even sure you can count that even. According to my "The Works of Josephus" (complete and unabridged) he lived A.D. 37 - c100 - so he wasn't there either.

Yes, but his account is generally accepted--he was born approx. 4 years after the death of Jesus. It'd be akin to someone born this year writing about the 9-11 tragedy. One would assume they had heard of it, read accounts, etc. It's second-best, I agree, but not to be discounted.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Pro?
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html

"We know this because an extraordinary inscription incised on one side of the ossuary reads in clear Aramaic letters: 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,'" he wrote.

DID JESUS OF NAZARETH EXIST?
All sides to the question
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

From http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

Finally let’s look at Jesus. What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.
Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:
"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."
That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal. As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator.

================================

Con?
From http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

and

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

 

[Mike Clarke]

What religion did god belong too?

Religion is about indoctrination not faith. One is not the same as the other. Humans have done with faith exactly the same as they have done with every other concept they get their dirty little hands on, and made into a money spinner for those at the top.
Religious leaders [all of them] should hang their heads in shame at the things they do or let go on in their name.
Forget the cop-out clause of 'free will' they should take some responsibility for leading people away from kindness and understanding, and sticking them in the trenches of rightious hatred.

Does god exist? in your mind maybe. But I put him right up there with the Dillman no touch knock outs. Funny how the hand of god only works through people doing good deeds. Those doing bad ones always seem to be acting of their "own free will".

If I'm kind to someone, it's because I am, likewise if I'm not. It has little to do with some Jewish guy who lived 2K ago.
By the way, it might help if people got their facts right and stopped believing in the 'selected' stuff written long after the man died. From my understanding he was born around Febuary/March and about three years earlier.
And he certainly didn't look like some hippy with a nice tan. People can't even deal with the truth of his image let alone his ideas.

It's not the messenger you should be focusing on, but the message, and as Martin Luthor noted many hundreds of years ago, you don't need a bloody preacher for that!

Mike.

 

[arnisador]

Hmmm, I think Josephus is the only 1st century and hence somewhat contemporary reference--others may be be secondary (tertiary?).

As to redaction of Josephus' works to include a reference to jesus, I am not an expert but I do not think this is a widely held interpretation. I may be mistaken!

 

[Nightingale]

I remember hearing the theory of the Jesus reference being added to Josephus' writings on the history channel a while back.

 

[Master of Blades]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Moderator Note:



THis thread is hot, but for the most part has been alot less 'in your face' than many. Its been more civil than I expected. There have been some 'ruffled feathers' and such but the majority has been ok, IMO.

Keep within forum guidelines, leave the 'personal attacks' out of it and keep it 'friendly' and we won't have reason to lock it.

With that said...please understand that neither I not the rest of the moderator team can read everything in this thread. If you see a personal attack, if it gets -flameish- please use the -report to moderator- feature. If you have a personal issue with someone, either let it go, or take it private. We will not hesitate to suspend or ban someone who gets out of control.

Thank you.

Thats what I wanted to say, but you forgot to say you would unleash M.O.B on them! :asian:

 

[yilisifu]

Well said. Countless acts of terrorism and untold suffering have been wrought in the name of "freedom." This is certainly no indication that freedom is a bad thing. It just shows how people can twist it's concept(s) around to justify their actions.

Every major religious faith has also been involved in similar atrocities. It does not necessarily indicate that the theology is bad...

Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam....they've all been scapegoats at one time or another for man's unquenchable desire to kill his fellow man. This is to include atheistic cultures as well.

It all comes down to each individual's faith; his or her personal relationship with God. Not long ago, my daughter's former boyfriend (they'd remained good friends) was killed in a freak car accident. I knew the 19 yr old boy very well and his death brought back memories of the day my own son was killed.
As I looked at the boy in the coffin, I muttered, "It always comes down to this, doesn't it?" For all our bravado; for all that we do and hope to accomplish in life, it always comes down to the fact that each of us is going to die. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, no matter how famous or wealthy we become, we will all perish...some will go easily and others not so easily. But we will all shuffle off this mortal coil.
And at that moment; the instant of drawing the very last breath, we'd better be certain of our beliefs....because there is only one truth. Truth is absolute.
In that last moment of life, our doubts will come to the fore (if we have any). And that moment could occur at any time........crossing the street, driving to work, eating a ham sandwich.
The only thing that is certain about life is that you will not get out of it alive. Seek out the truth so you will be ready when death comes to embrace you.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Mike Clarke
What religion did god belong too?

Religion is about indoctrination not faith. One is not the same as the other.

Religion is about faith. The incorrect approach to evangelism results in indoctrination. Human error.

Humans have done with faith exactly the same as they have done with every other concept they get their dirty little hands on, and made into a money spinner for those at the top.
Religious leaders [all of them] should hang their heads in shame at the things they do or let go on in their name.

If you are referring to cults and tele-evangelists, you have a case.
There are some priests that live better than the parishioners and that is wrong. But most of the religious orders live a life of poverty.

Pope John Pual certainly does not have a Swiss bank account. Dalai Lama certainly owns no material wealth.

Forget the cop-out clause of 'free will' they should take some responsibility for leading people away from kindness and understanding, and sticking them in the trenches of rightious hatred.

Please elaborate how the leaders have mislead them, specifically how John Pual and Dalai Lama have preached hatred.

Does god exist? in your mind maybe. But I put him right up there with the Dillman no touch knock outs. Funny how the hand of god only works through people doing good deeds. Those doing bad ones always seem to be acting of their "own free will".

I don't believe anyone has claimed that only Christians do good deeds. On the contrary, scumbags are scumbags, irrespective of religion affiliation.

If I'm kind to someone, it's because I am, likewise if I'm not. It has little to do with some Jewish guy who lived 2K ago.
By the way, it might help if people got their facts right and stopped believing in the 'selected' stuff written long after the man died. From my understanding he was born around Febuary/March and about three years earlier.
And he certainly didn't look like some hippy with a nice tan. People can't even deal with the truth of his image let alone his ideas.

It's not the messenger you should be focusing on, but the message, and as Martin Luthor noted many hundreds of years ago, you don't need a bloody preacher for that!

Mike.

It's not the messenger you should be focusing on, but the message That is what we have been saying in stressing "separating the people from the Church" . It is the teachings of Jesus, the message, that is important.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
JN-

Being Wiccan will not interfere with my wanting to be a teacher. It is recognized and protected under US law, and under anti-discrimination legislation. Schools are more interested in my professional qualifications (Almost a Master's in Education, Credentialed in both Elementary and Secondary, one year full time experience, four years part time experience, etc) than they are in my religion, which they aren't even allowed to ASK at a job interview, and which I do not disclose to colleagues in a professional setting, simply because it is none of their business, and separation of church and state requires me to leave my religion out of the classroom unless directly asked by a student, and then I can answer the question and simply state my own personal views without preaching or attempting to convert (wiccans don't do this anyway...we believe that those needing to follow our path will seek us out, and we don't need to actively solicit followers, because it really doesn't matter which path you're on as long as it's a good one).

The only time someone would see me and know that I'm Wiccan would be at a Wiccan function, in which case, they would be there doing the same thing I am. My religion has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to teach sixth grade mathematics, and most schools recognize this. About the only place where it might be a problem is down in the bible belt, and I wouldn't be applying for work there anyway.

I don't doubt your qualification. I have come across your posts and you are methodical and intelligent. The kids would be lucky to have you as a teacher.

I just thought that when the kids went home and told their parents that their teacher was a witch and practiced witchcraft, that would unlikely to go down well. People who know you well, would not be concerned. But it would be a tough sell for those who don't. Most parents would have reservation about their kids' teachers being a witch. lol I am sure most kids think their teachers are wicked witches anyway.

 

[Nightingale]

I keep my own religious beliefs out of the classroom. LOL. I taught for a year in CATHOLIC school! When a student came to me with a religious question (and they did often, even though I didn't teach religion, because I had a good rapport with many of them), I would answer "well, this is what the church thinks...." or if it was something really specific that I didn't remember, I'd say "why don't you ask Father Mario, and then come back and tell me what he said, because I want to know too!"

When I'm asked about my own views I usually just say "I think everyone has the right to worship god or not worship god as they choose, in their own way."

As long as you preface any religious statements with the words "I think" and keep them pretty general, you're ok. Teachers aren't required to keep religion out of the classroom. They're required to refrain from pushing one religious idea over any other, because all recognized religions are seen as equal by the US government, and its against the law to favor one over another in your classroom. As long as you use the words "I think" it makes it clear that you're stating an opinion, and as long as that opinion is farely unoffensive and doesn't really mention anyone in particular, you're ok. however, a statement such as "I think everyone who doesn't (insert religious catch phrase such as "accept jesus into their heart, follow the path of the veddas, etc...) is going to (insert unpleasant afterlife type place)" would be unacceptable.

When I'm asked about my religion in the classroom, I just say "I'm a spiritual person, but not really a religious one. I believe there's a god and that god does magnificent things, but I don't go to church because I haven't really found one that I like."

They tend to believe that my views are similar to theirs with this answer, although I never listed any religion in particular.

The only way for a parent/student/admin to know that I'm wiccan is to run into me at a wiccan supply store or wiccan event. Both of those (at least, the real ones) are very hard to find if you don't know exactly where you're going and what you're looking for, so if someone finds me there, they know what I'm doing, but I know what they're doing, so nobody is going to say anything. Many wiccans are open about their path, but many are not, so most of us wouldn't say anything about someone else we saw at an event, especially if it could harm their career or personal life. We believe that everything you do comes back to you threefold, so we really try to spread good around and not put others in uncomfortable situations....but there are always bad apples in every bunch...

but if someone did make a stink about it and it cost me my job, that school district would have the world's biggest lawsuit on their hands, cause the ACLU would be all over me! LOL. They're not stupid. If anything, it would make them afraid to fire me for fear that I'd scream "discrimination!" I've seen this happen with schools being afraid to fire someone who's part of a protected group (racial minority, sexual minority, etc...) even though they're an awful teacher, because they're afraid of the legal reprocussions. In california, being wiccan would protect me more than it would hurt me as a teacher.

Sure, districts try to give teachers rotten classes and grades they don't want to teach to make them leave...problem is...I like them all. I prefer working with remedial kids with problems...what are they going to do? make me teach honors classes?! I'd be in heaven! LOL. They could make me teach kindergarten (the usual punishment for middle school teachers who the district wants to get rid of), but I love the little ones too! They could toss me into special education...but wait...that's what my specialty is!

There's really no place a district could put me that I wouldn't want to be, because in my eyes, children are children. They have different challenges, and different situations when they go home, but basically they're all kids who need an education. But, if a district tried to get rid of me because I was a rotten teacher, I'd leave on my own...you can tell a rotten teacher:

1. they hate their job...because they're no good at it, and are tired and frustrated.

2. they place all the blame for failure on the children and none on themselves...a good teacher recognizes that students fail because of a combination of parents, environment, student, and teacher.

lol. I need to stop writing novels and get my tail to work or I'm gonna be late! have a good day, everyone.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
I keep my own religious beliefs out of the classroom. LOL. I taught for a year in CATHOLIC school! When a student came to me with a religious question (and they did often, even though I didn't teach religion, because I had a good rapport with many of them), I would answer "well, this is what the church thinks...." or if it was something really specific that I didn't remember, I'd say "why don't you ask Father Mario, and then come back and tell me what he said, because I want to know too!"

When I'm asked about my own views I usually just say "I think everyone has the right to worship god or not worship god as they choose, in their own way."

As long as you preface any religious statements with the words "I think" and keep them pretty general, you're ok. Teachers aren't required to keep religion out of the classroom. They're required to refrain from pushing one religious idea over any other, because all recognized religions are seen as equal by the US government, and its against the law to favor one over another in your classroom. As long as you use the words "I think" it makes it clear that you're stating an opinion, and as long as that opinion is farely unoffensive and doesn't really mention anyone in particular, you're ok. however, a statement such as "I think everyone who doesn't (insert religious catch phrase such as "accept jesus into their heart, follow the path of the veddas, etc...) is going to (insert unpleasant afterlife type place)" would be unacceptable.

When I'm asked about my religion in the classroom, I just say "I'm a spiritual person, but not really a religious one. I believe there's a god and that god does magnificent things, but I don't go to church because I haven't really found one that I like."

They tend to believe that my views are similar to theirs with this answer, although I never listed any religion in particular.

The only way for a parent/student/admin to know that I'm wiccan is to run into me at a wiccan supply store or wiccan event. Both of those (at least, the real ones) are very hard to find if you don't know exactly where you're going and what you're looking for, so if someone finds me there, they know what I'm doing, but I know what they're doing, so nobody is going to say anything. Many wiccans are open about their path, but many are not, so most of us wouldn't say anything about someone else we saw at an event, especially if it could harm their career or personal life. We believe that everything you do comes back to you threefold, so we really try to spread good around and not put others in uncomfortable situations....but there are always bad apples in every bunch...

but if someone did make a stink about it and it cost me my job, that school district would have the world's biggest lawsuit on their hands, cause the ACLU would be all over me! LOL. They're not stupid. If anything, it would make them afraid to fire me for fear that I'd scream "discrimination!" I've seen this happen with schools being afraid to fire someone who's part of a protected group (racial minority, sexual minority, etc...) even though they're an awful teacher, because they're afraid of the legal reprocussions. In california, being wiccan would protect me more than it would hurt me as a teacher.

Sure, districts try to give teachers rotten classes and grades they don't want to teach to make them leave...problem is...I like them all. I prefer working with remedial kids with problems...what are they going to do? make me teach honors classes?! I'd be in heaven! LOL. They could make me teach kindergarten (the usual punishment for middle school teachers who the district wants to get rid of), but I love the little ones too! They could toss me into special education...but wait...that's what my specialty is!

There's really no place a district could put me that I wouldn't want to be, because in my eyes, children are children. They have different challenges, and different situations when they go home, but basically they're all kids who need an education. But, if a district tried to get rid of me because I was a rotten teacher, I'd leave on my own...you can tell a rotten teacher:

1. they hate their job...because they're no good at it, and are tired and frustrated.

2. they place all the blame for failure on the children and none on themselves...a good teacher recognizes that students fail because of a combination of parents, environment, student, and teacher.

lol. I need to stop writing novels and get my tail to work or I'm gonna be late! have a good day, everyone.

Very good post. You have given a lot of thought into your situation. I admire your dedication and enthusiasm for teaching.

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

As to redaction of Josephus' works to include a reference to jesus, I am not an expert but I do not think this is a widely held interpretation. I may be mistaken!

The redaction theory has come under considerable strain with the discovery of the Arabic text of Josephus' Wars of the Jews; after all, why would Islamic scholars redact a document to reflect a position favorable to Christian monks?

It should also be pointed out that having a single source does not render the matter fiction: we have only one source for the legend of Atlantis- the tale related thirdhand by Plato in Timaeus and Critias. Yet, there is now considerable belief in the scientific community that Atlantis did in fact exist on the island of Thera in the Aegean Sea, and there has been archelogical remains discovered lend credence to this theory.

Likewise, for many years, the existence of the City of Troy was scoffed at by the scientific community, because the only accounting of its existence came from the Iliad and the Odyssey, written by Homer sometime around 750 BC, a full four-and-a-half centuries after the Trojan war supossedly took place ( if Homer actually existed; that, too, is now a matter a some contention ). It wasn't until Heinrich Schliemann uncovered the ruins in 1873 that anyone took the story seriously.

I remember hearing the theory of the Jesus reference being added to Josephus' writings on the history channel a while back.

I would take anything put forth by the Discovery Network/TLC/History Channel with a large grain of salt. This is the same network that, when members of the martial arts community complained about the inaccuracy of information presented about the martial arts in a few of the specials they did last year, we were told that the Discovery Network took no responsibility for the information presented, because the shows are produced by outside contractors.

 

[Mike Clarke]

Johnathan,

To answer your questions.

Having faith is about having faith, religion is about thought control [doctrine]. Try being a catholic priest if your only 'sin' is you're a woman. It's okay to be a child molester though, the church will look out for you then alright!

Maybe you can tell me why one human being is any closer to god than another? Or why anyone would think their opinions have any more value than anyone elses when it comes to their relationship with their god?

Religions are set up on exactly the same lines as martial arts associations. A guy at the top [pope or whoever?], his country chief instructors come next [cardinals], then the regional chief instructors [bishops], then the club instructors [priests], and then the students [parishioners]. The money is generated at the bottom and works it's way to the top as fast as those up there can pull it towards them.

As for the pope not having a Swiss bank account, I think you'll find the vatican has! The pope lives for free in his palace of obscene wealth, [the vatican city], where they did a deal with the Nazis not to enter if they promised to turn away any Jews that came begging for their lives and refuge, and while today many hundreds of thousands of catholics world wide live in abject poverty. Shame on him for letting this be so. Mind you, if he were to buck the system he may well go the way of his predecessor.

As for the Dali Lama, I can't say how he gets his income, but then again, he dosen't really need one when people are falling over themselves to hang off his every word and put him up in five star luxury while he jets around the world.
So much for the simple life eh?

At least we agree that scumbags are scumbags regardless of religious affiliation. I'm just saddened that so many religious groups have so many as members. I think the annual budget in America alone was $5.000.000 just to keep catholic priests out of the courts for sexual assaults on children. I guess god alone knows what they spend world wide eh?

You show me someone who is deeply religious, and I'll show you a fanatical bigot who's only highly developed sense is one of control of others. All in the name of god of course!

If you want to see religious heatred go to Northen Ireland, Africa, Middle East, Indoneisia, South America, gp almost anywhere on the planet, and you'll see it. Human Error again eh?

You go to heaven when you die if you like, I'll see you up there, but don't expect me to catch you when you stand in front of your god, and find out he a dead ringer for you.

Mike.

 

[Cruentus]

Having faith is about having faith, religion is about thought control [doctrine]. Try being a catholic priest if your only 'sin' is you're a woman. It's okay to be a child molester though, the church will look out for you then alright!

Sure, make a bunch of broad generalizations and expect everyone to take your side. Being female has never been a sin, and molesting children has never been O.K. in the Catholic Church, or almost any world religion.

Maybe you can tell me why one human being is any closer to god than another? Or why anyone would think their opinions have any more value than anyone elses when it comes to their relationship with their god?

I can tell you that you should ask God for answers to these questions, not a web-talk forum. Your straying from the issue here anyways. The question that was asked was regarding "What religious beliefs do you follow," not "How well can you challenge other people's beliefs.

Religions are set up on exactly the same lines as martial arts associations. A guy at the top [pope or whoever?], his country chief instructors come next [cardinals], then the regional chief instructors [bishops], then the club instructors [priests], and then the students [parishioners]. The money is generated at the bottom and works it's way to the top as fast as those up there can pull it towards them.

I love the way you equate all religions and martial arts organizations with pyrimid scams. You want to talk about money, while at the same time negating the entire purpose of the religion themselves, which has little to do with money. Also, there are many martial arts organizations out there that do a great service for there members. Oh, but lets not pay any attention to these facts, lets instead make more broad generalizations.

As for the pope not having a Swiss bank account, I think you'll find the vatican has! The pope lives for free in his palace of obscene wealth, [the vatican city], where they did a deal with the Nazis not to enter if they promised to turn away any Jews that came begging for their lives and refuge, and while today many hundreds of thousands of catholics world wide live in abject poverty. Shame on him for letting this be so. Mind you, if he were to buck the system he may well go the way of his predecessor.

As for the Dali Lama, I can't say how he gets his income, but then again, he dosen't really need one when people are falling over themselves to hang off his every word and put him up in five star luxury while he jets around the world.
So much for the simple life eh?

I have already explained the money position in regards to the Catholic Church in a previous post. You might want to reread that. But, of course, if you want to continue to believe that every Buddhist monk and member of the cloth out there lives in the lap of luxury, then go ahead. Heck, believe what you want, that is what this thread is about, isn't it? Just remember, there are people out there who still believe that the world is flat, despite all of the evidence against it. And just like we can tell those people anything we want, and they will not change their minds, I could tell you whatever I want, but if your mind is made up already then it is more productive talking to a wall.

You show me someone who is deeply religious, and I'll show you a fanatical bigot who's only highly developed sense is one of control of others. All in the name of god of course!

Ah.....so YOU are bigoted against people who are religious. Well, a bigot is a bigot to me, and being bigotted against someone of any religion or way of thought is just as bad as being bigotted against someone of race. I just like to know who I'm talking to.
Thank you for showing everyone your true colors.

If you want to see religious heatred go to Northen Ireland, Africa, Middle East, Indoneisia, South America, gp almost anywhere on the planet, and you'll see it. Human Error again eh?

We've discussed this at length already. The answer is "Yes". Eh?

You go to heaven when you die if you like, I'll see you up there, but don't expect me to catch you when you stand in front of your god, and find out he a dead ringer for you.

Well, Mike, a nice way to end your beautiful post. Prejudging someone else, and speaking for God. Many people haven't liked the way Johnathan Napalm has argued on this thread, but the one thing he hasn't done is condem anyone, or say that God will condem an individual on this forum. And he's supposed to be the fanatic? Well, Mike, congradulations for completely crossing the line.

Now, maybe you missed the point of this thread, or maybe you just let your emotions get the best of you. I'm not sure, but let me explain. This Thread is ment to be a constructive discussion on Religious beliefs (more specifically, beliefs regarding the "God" concept). Despite some minor flame wars, it has basically stayed that way. This thread is not ment to be a slamming of other's beliefs or religions. And, even if you don't like someone, this thread is not intended to facilitate personal attacks.

Now if you want to constructively state what your beliefs are, that would be great. If you have a question or polite critique of/for someone, also fine. I just hope that you have a different side to you then what you have shown us here.

However, if you can't refrain from attacking others, then I feel that your a clown who should be suspended until you can behave. I'm not a moderator, but this is just my opinion.

Thanks.
God bless you, and have a holy day.

 

[Mike Clarke]

Hello Paul,
Say, your not 'THE' Paul are you, one of the gang of twelve from way back?

I take your comments on board and thank you for them.
I could care less who thinks what about god or any other issue, just so long as they don't expect me to go along with them having some kind of moral high ground or insight into how to live a good life. One of the hallmarks of religion is this arrogant belief that 'They' are right and the rest of us should some how be shown pity for not being able to see the error of our ways.

I love the way Religious people always try to set the agenda for what can and can't be talked about too. Pop your head into my world and start dribbling your clap-trap at me, and you can bet you'll have it hit on. Oh, and by the way, exactlly which god are you suggesting I put my questions to? Oh, don't tell me, it wouldn't be the "One true god" would it?

Keep your blessings to yourself Paul, I don't need them from you or any other bunch of folk who hold religious convictions. Now if you were just a plan old ordenary nice guy [which you may well be] than I'd be happy to sit and shoot the breeze with you any time. the doctrine is alive and well with you that's clear, let's hope it serves you well?

Your post has just endorsed what I said about 'religious folk'.
You live in world of control and doctorine and you hate it when anyone speaks to that.

Stop passing the buck Paul and take responsibility for yourself without resorting to some mythical third party to take care of you.

Mike.

 

[Abbax8]

If a person is calling themself a Christian, then it is encumbent on them to strive to live a life accordingly. A Christian life is a life of unconditional love for God, Yourself and Others. To Quote the Bible- Love is Patient, Love is Kind, Love is not quick tempered. Love does not rejoice with wrong doing but rejoices with the Truth. Love is not Pompous. Love believes all things, bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. I may not have this quote in order, but this is what summarizes Christian Life, this is where the rubber meets the road. Easy to Do- NO!! Yet I am inspired because I have met some people in my life who struggle daily to live this out. Some are priests and nuns, others are laypeople- married and single. All are past their 40's. I wonder what that says about humans. I know when I was younger I was more hot headed. I find it offensive when someone makes broad generalizations, but I will try to be patient. Since this is a budo site, read the above quote, and think about how it compares to the philosophy most arts say they have, and the Journey it's adherents are supposed to be on. With Respect To All.


Peace
Dennis