The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[mantis]

wow..
thanks for answering each one of my points.. you too sound very reasonable..
and yes i meant the bible is indeed fallible.
i still do think that it's economy-independent when it comes to forbidding things. i think the supreme existence in a religion forbids thing for one of two reasons:
1. to correct society, example Buddha forbidding lying, or encouraging mercy.
2. to test people and see who abides to the rules and who does not, and that's in religions that believe in the after-life, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I do not really have solid examples of when religions came to correct society. but why would there be prophets if they didnt to correct or change something?
good seeing all those posts, especially Heretic's ones..

 

[mrhnau]

In other words, an Appeal To Authority. More circular logic. Wee!

People have their beliefs. No need to be rude or crass. Are we not here to discuss our beliefs on the topic? Its refreshing to hear someone actually state where they are coming from.

MrH

 

[heretic888]

People have their beliefs. No need to be rude or crass. Are we not here to discuss our beliefs on the topic? Its refreshing to hear someone actually state where they are coming from.

MrH

Rude? Crass? Hrmm... I prefer honest.

Yes, everyone is free to discuss their beliefs on the topic. But, as is the nature of public discourse, be expected to have said beliefs looked at, examined, and questioned. It shouldn't come as a surprise when it happens.

I fully expect such, and your post is, in fact, a confirmation of my expectation coming to fruit.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

thanks for answering each one of my points.. you too sound very reasonable..

Appearances can be deceiving.

and yes i meant the bible is indeed fallible.

Truthery!

i still do think that it's economy-independent when it comes to forbidding things.

Okies.

i think the supreme existence in a religion forbids thing for one of two reasons:
1. to correct society, example Buddha forbidding lying, or encouraging mercy.
2. to test people and see who abides to the rules and who does not, and that's in religions that believe in the after-life, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Yes, I would agree that many religious principles exist to genuinely better mankind and lead to a greater moral wisdom. But, at the same time, just as many religious edicts are nothing more than a product of their time and place in history --- this is why the Bible condones slavery, but we moderns find it reprehensible.

I do not really have solid examples of when religions came to correct society. but why would there be prophets if they didnt to correct or change something?

Some 'prophets' may be the real deal. But, just as many (if not more) are nothing short of power-hungry conmen trying to expound control and dominion over others. In fact, historically, I'd say the latter was more typical than the former.

Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

People have their beliefs. No need to be rude or crass. Are we not here to discuss our beliefs on the topic? Its refreshing to hear someone actually state where they are coming from.

MrH

Yes, but we're also here to critique those opinions as well. Just because an opinion is about a sensitive topic such a religion or gender roles doesn't make it immune to outside assessment.

Unless, of course, we're to regard the spiritual beliefs of the Waco Texas Christian cult as equally valid and inspiring as the writings of Mahatma Ghandi, in which case I see no point to discussion in the first place. And no, neither of those beliefs are part of this thread topic, just an example.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Oh, some light reading over the winter break.

Oohhhh no. Quite heavy reading...and not the most approachable prose.

P.S.: The state of 'cleansing one of sins before returning to God' sounds more like Purgatory, in my opinion.

I can't recall if I read it in Bernstein or elsewhere. There is a conception of Hell that isn't purgatory, but Hell itself. I know of a Buddhist Hell that does this, so perhaps I'm thinking of that one. It burns the soul clean of sins prior to reincarnation, I believe. Of course, Buddhist Hell doesn't really count here.

Hrmmm.... well, I cited a LOT of works in my previous 'Historical Jesus' threads. Oftentimes, with direct quotations from said works. You could try perusing through those if you're looking for academic specifics.

Perhaps you have...I just don't recall it from the threads that I've been in on. You once gave me some stuff when I asked, which I've appreciated.




Regards,


Steve

 

[mantis]

1) There is no good reason to believe that the 'motion' of the universe does, in fact, not follow an unending chain of causality, which Aquinas believed to be 'impossible'.

2) There is no good reason to believe that only ONE 'Unmoved Mover' is possible.

3) There is no good reason to believe this 'Unmoved Mover' is the 'God' figure of the Judeo-Christian tradition.


Laterz.

there could be a good reason..
the reason could be that God told you so!
and here kicks in the job of prophets with miracles and proofs, as well as books such as the bible, the testament and the Quran.
these books should have the necessary evidence to convince the good, the bad, and the ugly.
their job is to have answers for philosophers, illeterate people, poor people, scientists, and every other class of mentalities.
i know you are thinking the bible only contains stories people told about Jesus, and it doesnt contain 'solid' answers.
now, i want to remind you that you should not judge all religions just because you do not find such info in the bible, right?

 

[7starmantis]

Seems I'm a bit late, some people DO have to work you know!

Ok, let's get a few things straight here...

1) At no point did I ever refer to the Bible in itself was bovine feces. If you look at what I actually said in context, I was specifically addressing traditional Christian apologism and fundamentalist doctrine. The Bible, in my mind, is a multi-layered work that can be subject to a myriad of diverse interpretations. This is especially true in the Jewish tradition of midrash, the Christian tradition of docetism, or the Muslim tradition of tawil.

I wasn't trying to misquote you, in fact I wasn't actually refering to you specifically, just using your words in my point. A bit of plagerism if you will. Your correct, it is subject to many interpretations...does that fact alone make all interpretations correct, or only one correct?
I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical. I'm actually kind of confused why you would refer to it as Christian tradition. Christological tendencies don't make it a Christian tradition. In fact, I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?

2) Contrary to popular belief, the Bible most commonly used by Christians was never written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Christian 'Old Testament' is a an intertestamental work known as the Septugaint, a Greek rendering of the Torah which has many overt transliteration changes intended to make Judaism more agreeable to the Hellenistic philosophy popular at the time. To give but one example: the Septugaint references a Messianic prophecy of a virgin birth, the Torah does not. As for the 'New Testament' itself, every one of its books are originally in Greek.

Thats actually not true. Well partly. The bible was never written in aramaic, not canonised portions at least. There is really no proof to support the belief that the bible (OT) was originally written completely in hebrew or any other language. Most of the earliest descovered portions are however. Until I see an argument not lacking evidentiary proof, I dont think there is any point in arguing that further. It really changes nothing about this discussion.

3) There are a few minority Christian groups speckled throughout the Middle East that are living exceptions to Point 2, such as the Peshitta --- but the overwhelming bulk of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians use Greek works as their source material for Biblical translations.

Thats a half statement. Greek works as their source material for New Testament biblical translation, I would agree.

4) I would not agree with any definition of 'Christian' as 'one who professes belief in Jesus Christ', popular as it may be. Not all groups that are historically or currently recognized as 'Christian' believe that Jesus Christ even existed as a historical person. Even among those that do, not all subscribe to the belief that he was some sort of divine Redeemer (much in the tradition of the Hellenistic Mystery Schools). In fact, my guess is that most 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE would be excluded by popular definitions of 'Christianity' (which was far more diverse and variegated in the first few centuries of its history than it is now).

Thats the problem, we need a deffinition. There are way too many floating around. Personally according to the bible, a christian would be "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ". I dont see the problem with using that deffinition. I dont know where your getting your historical and current data, but saying a group of people have christological tendencies or beliefs is not the same as calling them christians. Since the bible is what is being debated here, shouldn't we seek to find its definition of Christian? We can't make posts, one using a historical definition from the first few centuries, and one using a deffinition of current times. I think you need to look at the root of the word Christian, and its inception and creation (no pun intended). Its original usage had much more of a precise deffinition then it does now, in my opinion.
OK, all that to say, lets settle on a def.

5) I don't think I should have to reiterate that the belief that God has personal opinions about life and that only a select group of special people knows what they are is both exceedingly dangerous, unabashedly irrational, and morally arrogant to the extreme. It also further reflects my previous thesis: that, for most people, any personal 'god' is simply a deified projection of their own superego (which itself is informed by authoritative sources of the culture and community one is raised up in).

Very good point! Only your now defining christians as a whole as people who believe that "God" has personal opinions about life and that only they know them. I wouldn't call that belief Christian in the biblical deffinition of the word. In fact, any person who claims to know God's opinions would be called out as a false prophet in any group I grew up in.

6) One should be cautious when proclaiming what 'Paul' did or did not write. Of the 13 letters of the New Testament attributed to him, roughly 7 are believed to be mostly 'authentic' --- and, even among those 7, it is pretty much well-acknowledged that they were edited and manipulated by early Church authorities like Tertullian. Supposedly, the letter to the Galatians is supposed to be the least doctored of all the Pauline works. The Pastorals, by contrast, are almost univerally accepted as forgeries of later centuries.

I agree with you there. I do think however that most "christians" hold faith in that God has control over current (past) events, including the manipulations of the gospel. Its pretty widely accepted that God did not physically write the scriptures himself, correct? In the eyes of most "christians" it wouldn't matter who manipulated or rewrote, or changed the text, its still under Gods protection and control. I'm just telling you that is what your going to come up against with that argument.

7) While the Marcionite schools of Gnosticism is regarded as 'heresy' today, during the first two centuries CE, it was without doubt the most popular and widespread of any single sect of Christianity. The 7 'authentic' Pauline letters were written to churches that are all known to be centers of Marcionism by the middle of the 2nd century CE. This is very telling.

Man, I'm getting typing cramp
Your now subscribin to your own faulty logic arguments. Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.

8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is hades in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.

Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself? You can’t use words like “Most Likely” as we may disagree on what is likely or not.

9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.

Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ? Personally I haven’t seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly? Again, we are taking a literal hard label of Christians instead of realizing that Christians as a whole disagree with each other probably more than with those not claiming Christianity.



7sm

 

[mantis]

take it easy Mr. 7StarMantis..
if you get carpal tunnel from typing you can mantis-hook no more
in fact, different things that happened to my hands due to using mouse/keyboard made doctors recommend i join some pilates or yoga class for stretching, and my choice was kung fu instead!

 

[BlackCatBonz]

In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.

~Jessica

in the words of eric cartman, "that is so weak"

so because something is agreeable it is the truth.
its up to the non believers to disprove his existence.

lots of people believed in zeus at one time.......did he lose his official god status when everyone started believing in the one "true" god?
what about all of the other gods?


just because a bunch of people believe in something.....doesnt make it so.
that point has been hammered to death.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

HHJH i highly recommend "the jesus mysteries".....excellent book.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical.

Heresies are Christian traditions as well, when you stop to consider it. Arianism was a Christian movement, and quite popular. It was dominant in the west until Athanasius gained political leverage against it.

Your now subscribin to your own faulty logic arguments. Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.

Marcionism (as the defined heresy) didn't exist in the first century when Paul was alive. Your suggestion that Paul's urgency is due to Marcionism is incorrect. Marcion lived ca 115, well after Paul's death. It would be rather difficult for Paul to be concerned with a movement whose founder had yet to be born, don't you think?

I think what he is suggesting...and he'll correct me if I'm wrong...is that those centers of Pauline thought became centers for the Marcionite movement...the ideas of the former giving rise to the latter.

This might be supported by the fact that Marcion used the original ten Pauline letters to draft the Apostolicon (not Hebrews or the Pastorals). Paul was clearly his favorite Apostle.

You can’t use words like “Most Likely” as we may disagree on what is likely or not.

He's perfectly justified in doing so if the weight of scholarship is on his side.

Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ?

When it comes to Augustine, he can indeed. Augustine is considered (according to Wikipedia...I love Wiki...) the fountainhead of the Protestant Reformation and viewed as the pre-eminent Doctor of the Church by Roman Catholics.

Here's a little background for you...you might want to go over it before you go "mano a mano" with Heretic on this one:

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



Regards,



Steve

 

[heretic888]

there could be a good reason..
the reason could be that God told you so!
and here kicks in the job of prophets with miracles and proofs, as well as books such as the bible, the testament and the Quran.
these books should have the necessary evidence to convince the good, the bad, and the ugly.
their job is to have answers for philosophers, illeterate people, poor people, scientists, and every other class of mentalities.
i know you are thinking the bible only contains stories people told about Jesus, and it doesnt contain 'solid' answers.
now, i want to remind you that you should not judge all religions just because you do not find such info in the bible, right?

Ummm.... actually, I was referring to Thomas Aquinas' traditional proofs for God. I didn't say anything about the Bible.

But, for that matter, the Bible really doesn't 'prove' anything, either...

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

Ummm.... actually, I was referring to Thomas Aquinas' traditional proofs for God. I didn't say anything about the Bible.

But, for that matter, the Bible really doesn't 'prove' anything, either...

Laterz.

yah, my bad.. didnt read that either..
i know the bible doesnt provide satisfaction to the mind, and that's why i said dont judge all religions (maybe i wasnt directing my speech to you, i forgot) because the bible can't do it..
i actually classified religion into 4 categories, i will not tell which religion belongs to which category so people do not get offended..
1. way of life, which covers the matters of this life, and what happens after, and offers a whole system of life based on a set of beliefs. this should satisfy the mind, the heart, science and every aspect of human's intellect.
2. religions that have been changed over time. those that were modified by people to suit their desires, either to get money, power, for political reasons, or whatever.. bottom line is they're changed!
3. philosophies... u know what i mean!
4. "false".. plain falsehoods. nothing makes sense, and everything contradicts!

haha, stupid huh? but helped me judge a category, or a class but not the whole idea of religion, and religiousness...

 

[tradrockrat]

Personally I haven’t seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly?

Well...


Mortal son of (a) God
Born of a Virgin
First miracle was turning water into wine
Was crucified
Rose from the dead


Yup -- Dionysus.

The only question is, can you place the date of origin of this story? Did it come before christianity? If so, would that be proof enough?


Heratic - I love reading this thread. So many times I'm thinking of a response and the next post is you saying it better and more clearly than I could - Bravo!


A little note - I minored in history in college, and one of the classes I took was history of the ancient near east. It was taught by an archeologist who was also a biblical scholar. He was a fascinating man to listen to. I remember one lecture when he was discussing a small town he had been excavating in modern day Jordan. The town had been decimated and no one knew why. My teacher realized that this town was depopulated right around the time pork became a "bad" thing to eat. Turns out that pork was a dangerous meat to keep around - went bad easily, and this city was dependent upon it. By studying the refuse of the village and other archeological evednce, he was able to determine that bad pork had caused several deaths and that the village just packed up and moved out because the religious (educated) leaders told them to.

My teacher also went on to explain some of the social / economic realities of the time (he mentioned fish as well).

 

[mantis]

i have a stupid question
which probably shouldnt be asked here
but i'll ask anyway
what's hell in the christian belief?
and if everybody is going to be forgiven why does hell exist?
and if not everybody is going to be forgiven why did Jesus sacrifice himself for everybody to be forgiven?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

HHJH i highly recommend "the jesus mysteries".....excellent book.

I've heard of it.

They're expensive, but one can get the lectures by Bart D. Ehrman on "The Lost Christianities" and "The Historical Jesus" from The Teaching Company. I'm listening to them now.

One I read awhile back is "Gospel Fictions" by Randall Helms. That too was pretty good. Blasphemy, I suppose, but still interesting.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

Heresies are Christian traditions as well, when you stop to consider it. Arianism was a Christian movement, and quite popular. It was dominant in the west until Athanasius gained political leverage against it.

Once again, the evidence that the term "Christian" needs to be defined. Arianism also denied the devinity of Jesus Christ. Until we can agree on a deffinition this debate will continue to spin in tight circles.

I think what he is suggesting...and he'll correct me if I'm wrong...is that those centers of Pauline thought became centers for the Marcionite movement...the ideas of the former giving rise to the latter.

This might be supported by the fact that Marcion used the original ten Pauline letters to draft the Apostolicon (not Hebrews or the Pastorals). Paul was clearly his favorite Apostle.

Oh no, I guess you won your debate

That fact matters little, in fact it only spreads the argument even thinner. The fact that Marcion used letters written by Paul proves what exactly? It proves as much as Jim Jones' use of koolaid links koolaid to the People's Temple.

I merely suggested an option that shows the faulty logic of said argument.

He's perfectly justified in doing so if the weight of scholarship is on his side.

Again an attempt to give authority to ones own beliefs or opinions. In the course of this discussion, using ones own opinions as truth is pretty trite.

When it comes to Augustine, he can indeed. Augustine is considered (according to Wikipedia...I love Wiki...) the fountainhead of the Protestant Reformation and viewed as the pre-eminent Doctor of the Church by Roman Catholics.

Here's a little background for you...you might want to go over it before you go "mano a mano" with Heretic on this one:

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

OK, your saying proof is available and your posting of proof are two completely different things. One more time, the need for an agreed deffinition of "christian" proves itself needed.

Here's a little background for you...you might want to go over it before you go "mano a mano" with Heretic on this one:

Whoa there big boy, just because I'm debating with your special friend doesn't mean you need to get all hostile. You obviously really respect heritics beliefs and opinions, dont let that cloud your judgement here. We are having a debate, not a fight.

Oh, and I dont need things like Wikipedia to know background, especially on Roman Cotholic Saints.

Listen, if you can't address my points and debate honestly and factually, we can't have an honest discussion. You ignored valid points that could yield good debate to "nit pick" about me going "mano a mano" with someone you agree with.

Again, I express my desire for honest debate where each side could understand and adress each others opinions and posts.

7sm

 

[kenpo tiger]

<snip> I remember one lecture when he was discussing a small town he had been excavating in modern day Jordan. The town had been decimated and no one knew why. My teacher realized that this town was depopulated right around the time pork became a "bad" thing to eat. Turns out that pork was a dangerous meat to keep around - went bad easily, and this city was dependent upon it. By studying the refuse of the village and other archeological evednce, he was able to determine that bad pork had caused several deaths and that the village just packed up and moved out because the religious (educated) leaders told them to. <snip>

There's your correlation. Not necessarily that pork went bad easily, but that pigs tend to scavenge for food and since the sanitary facilities in those days weren't ...

Hence, the reason for the kosher rule of not eating pork. It was unhealthy and (to quote you) "the religious (educated) leaders told them [not] to." The same, by the way, goes for shellfish, which are also scavengers -- and catfish, although it is a finned fish. The community leaders knew that it wasn't healthy but I don't know that they could prove why, other than "because I said so and I know these things." Whoever didn't believe them got dead, so who wasn't going to take what they said as gospel (sorry -- couldn't resist that one.)

Back then, folks relied upon religion and stories of what came before as fact. Knowing now what we know about the spread of disease through unsanitary conditions, it's easy for us to draw conclusions based upon scientifically-proven fact.

Your prof sounds like an interesting guy and that class must've been a good one.

 

[mantis]

Once again, the evidence that the term "Christian" needs to be defined. Arianism also denied the devinity of Jesus Christ. Until we can agree on a deffinition this debate will continue to spin in tight circles.

Oh no, I guess you won your debate

That fact matters little, in fact it only spreads the argument even thinner. The fact that Marcion used letters written by Paul proves what exactly? It proves as much as Jim Jones' use of koolaid links koolaid to the People's Temple.

I merely suggested an option that shows the faulty logic of said argument.

Again an attempt to give authority to ones own beliefs or opinions. In the course of this discussion, using ones own opinions as truth is pretty trite.

OK, your saying proof is available and your posting of proof are two completely different things. One more time, the need for an agreed deffinition of "christian" proves itself needed.

Whoa there big boy, just because I'm debating with your special friend doesn't mean you need to get all hostile. You obviously really respect heritics beliefs and opinions, dont let that cloud your judgement here. We are having a debate, not a fight.

Oh, and I dont need things like Wikipedia to know background, especially on Roman Cotholic Saints.

Listen, if you can't address my points and debate honestly and factually, we can't have an honest discussion. You ignored valid points that could yield good debate to "nit pick" about me going "mano a mano" with someone you agree with.

Again, I express my desire for honest debate where each side could understand and adress each others opinions and posts.

7sm

a set definition of 'christian'? are you kidding!?