Real quick, here is some PROOF

[MisterMike]

I'd a thought you'd be much happier pickin on Ann Coulter. Swing on by my CBS thread at let it all out.

 

[PeachMonkey]

OK, that's fine and dandy, but like the guy on the corner with fistfulls of flyers and 50,000 pins on his jacket screaming REPENT!, we can also ignore what we don't want to hear. I don't think the "sermons" given thus far were worthy of the responses, even given the sensitivity of the subject.

The dude came onto a discussion group and launched that whole thread... people *come* to discussion groups in order to respond to comments and dispute stuff.

I don't think religious schtuff should be any more subject to this "just ignore him" supposed discretion than any other topic (given that The Study is for political and religious discussion...)

 

[heretic888]

In typical style, I will discuss a few points that piqued my interest:

1) I personally don't believe there was a historical "Jesus of Nazareth" (or Yeshua ben Nazareth, if you prefer). My own personal view is that "Jesus Christ" is a composite character drawn from perhaps dozens of historical and ahistorical personalities --- including Pagan godmen like Dionysus, and the Yeshua ben Nun (Joshua) of the Old Testament. Thus, tossing the "J-word" around in an attempt to impress me will have very little effect.

2) It never ceases to amaze me how these fundie-types always overemphasize the "fire 'n brimstone" aspects of the New Testament, and always underemphasize the aspects that parallel with the Bodhisattva Vow --- y'know, the whole "unconditional compassion for all sentient beings", thing?? Or, if you prefer, "turn the other cheek"?? "Love thy enemy"?? C'mon, now....

3) Gnosticism was, of course, mentioned. And, unsuprisingly, blatantly misinterpreted and misrepresented. To note, calling "Paul" anti-Gnostic, unless you are talking about the forged "Pastoral Letters" (Timothy, Titus, etc) is rather laughable. Read Galatians sometime.

And, by the way, "Paul" did claim to teach a "secret" Christianity only available to the pneumatically prepared. The word translated for a "perfect" or "mature" Christian in Greek, teleote, actually means "initiated". Ever wonder why the only guys that directly claim to follow his teachings, like Marcion or Valentinus, were Gnostics?? Ever wonder why the orthodox/literalist movement never claimed "Paul" as "one of their own" 'til around the time that the Pastorals were forged, in the late 2nd century?? Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) sure didn't seem to know who the hell this "Paul" was...

Also, in no way does "speaking tongues" necessarily have anything to do with "Gnosticism". But, as a fun little side note, one of those "heretical" Gnostic works, the Gospel of Thomas, is now increasingly recognized as one of the source materials of some of the later Gospels (such as the Gospel of John, another pro-Gnostic work). It has a very close relationship with the source material identified as "Q".

4) Hardheadjarhead is quite correct in that a text does not, and cannot, prove itself. Contrary to the title of this thread, no "proof" has as of yet been provided. Nor will it be.

Have a good one.

 

[MisterMike]

The dude came onto a discussion group and launched that whole thread... people *come* to discussion groups in order to respond to comments and dispute stuff.

I don't think religious schtuff should be any more subject to this "just ignore him" supposed discretion than any other topic (given that The Study is for political and religious discussion...)

That's right but it's not for personal attacks. That was my only concern.

 

[PeachMonkey]

That's right but it's not for personal attacks. That was my only concern.

I can see that.

 

[DavidCC]

It's silly for a fundamentalist Christian to be trying to offer proof anyway, because there is no need for faith in the face of proof, and faith is the most important thing in fundamentalism.

Do I need faith that the sun is shining while it shines? No, becasue I can see it. When it rains, does faith that the sun will come back eventually help me get through the rain? Yes it does. So if there was some irrefutable proof of God's existence or that Christ rose from the dead, that would be the end of faith as we know it. So for somebody whose whole philosophy depends on the power of faith, trying to destroy faith seems a little ***-backwards.

But you gotta cut him some slack, it's exciting becoming a born-again christian, who knows what kind of mess Josh was before he got faith, what he traded in to get what he has now, or where he will be in 20 years. He might discover that Jewish mysticism is right for him, or he might be happy staying with the Pentecostals, or he might become a Lutheran. You just can't tell.

 

[heretic888]

This is quite true.

For all the criticisms we may have of various religions, it is important to remember that they can serve as a valuable means of grounding to the individual, giving him/her a sense of meaning, purpose, direction, and order.

Of course, then again, this can be said of ANY worldview or philosophy that is adhered to "religiously". It all depends on the individual.

 

[Flatlander]

Once again, kind of like martial arts.

 

[heretic888]

Yeah. Funny thing, that.