| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 15 2004, 12:05 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing Posted by: Rameus May 3 2004, 11:58 PM On occassion I am prone to pose as a wolf in sheep's clothing as it were, and frequent different Christian Forums. I usually start out very civil, just kind of watching and waiting... And then some priest or reverand will put a foot in his mouth. So I chop it off and hand it to him, very nicely of course (otherwise they ban me). I just love showing the congregations how full of shit their preachers are. Do most of them listen? No. But maybe a few start to question when they see some bastard agnostic stumble in and know more about their religion than their preachers do... I can have crackpipe dreams can't I? Anyway, I thought it might be funny to post an example from this evening: RAMEUS LOVES FUCKING WITH THE CLERGY: QUOTE RevJP (Moderator) Joined: 26 May 2003 Posts: 936 Location: CA Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:49 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was just re-reading this thread and I saw the word 'allegedly' regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It put me in mind of last Sunday's sermon regarding the resurrection. I don't have the outline in front of me, but Pastor Craig said that a few things point to the verification of the resurrection. When I get the outline out of the car, I will 'flesh' this out a bit. But for now: First we know that Jesus was a historically documented figure. His life, ministry and death are well documented by historical, archeological, and socio-anthropological points of view - one of the most documented people in historical (extra-bibilical) record. So we cannot doubt His existence, nor His death by crucifixtion. We only now have to look at his reported resurrection. Jesus' death was witnessed by thousands of people, so we can have no doubt that he was dead. He was entombed by Roman guards so we can have no doubt that he was properly and securely entombed. What do we have then? We have a man who was seen walking around town three days after He was killed and entombed. Speaking to people, being seen by people, undoubtedly many of the people who had previously seen him die. Yet no one pointed a finger and called Him a impersonator, no one claimed Him to be an imposter. Thousands of people who cried out for his execution, who brutalized Him and mocked Him in His time of death, and no one questioned that it was truly Christ who was up and walking around after His death? The Gospel accounts tells us that it was a group of women who first reported Him missing from the tomb. Many of you understand the role of women in that society, and many of you would understand the significance and recording that women would be the first to report something of such great magnitude. It goes to the truth of the Gospel's, if the Gospel writers had wanted to create a beleivable account, they would have not used women as the first to report. Women at that time were considered unreliable witnesses at best, they could not even testify in court - so if a group of men were trying create a story which they wanted to be believed by that society what sense would it make for them to use women as the primary witnesses for the empty tomb? Would they not, instead, choose to place themselves or other men in the position of reporting the disappearance of Christ's body? The Occam's razor explanation would be that the accounts they wrote were true to what had happened, and darn the consequences. There is more, but that is all for the moment. _________________ May the Lord bless you and keep you. May He make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He look toward you and give you peace. Num 6:24 QUOTE Rameus (Newbie Alert) Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 2 Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 11:18 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (by RevJP) QUOTE First we know that Jesus was a historically documented figure. His life, ministry and death are well documented by historical, archeological, and socio-anthropological points of view - one of the most documented people in historical (extra-bibilical) record. So we cannot doubt His existence, nor His death by crucifixtion. We only now have to look at his reported resurrection. With all due respect RevJP don't you think you're overstating the case a bit? I would assert the reverse, that he is one of the least (extra-biblically) documented personages in history. We have the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and Lucius. 1. The Josephus account is a known forgery by Eusebius, so that one is irrelevant. 2. Tacitus, who was writing 80 years after the death of Jesus, described Emperor Nero suppressing a cult that he considered "criminal" (for arson and rioting) and was founded by a man named Christos. He merely says that Christos was put to death in Judea by Pilate. The oldest surviving copies of Tacitus are from 1100 A.D., so there can be no certainty that they did not fall victim to the many forgeries of the Catholic Church during that time period. ‘Pious fraud’ as they call it. 3. Pliny, who was writing circa 61-113 A.D. merely mentions the name Christians. I'm not seeing how that provides historical documentation for Jesus. The oldest extant copies of Pliny are from 850 A.D., so again the possibility of Catholic tampering is there. I have seen some scholars assert that perhaps the the original version of Pliny referred to "Essenes" and not "Christians". This is merely unprovable speculation of course. 4. Lucian was a Satirist comedian writing in the second century. His account cracks a joke about a sect of Judaism who worshipped a man who died. Not seeing the historical documentation of Jesus there either. I'm not trying to play Devil's advocate here, just trying to voice my opinion that I don't consider the life of Jesus Christ to be well documented at all in an extra-biblical sense. In the gospels of course it is quite well documented. I guess what I'm saying is that your statement "His life, ministry and death are well documented by historical, archeological, and socio-anthropological points of view - one of the most documented people in historical (extra-biblical) record." seems to be a bit presumptuous according to my line of thinking anyway. Perhaps you know of some extra-biblical sources that I have not read? Rameus _________________ Posted by: Redshift May 4 2004, 12:29 AM It never ceases to amaze me, the liberties people take when preaching to the converted. What was his response? Posted by: me! May 4 2004, 12:53 AM awsome Rameus, way to go .. what was his response BTW ?? Posted by: extremeone May 4 2004, 01:47 AM Rameus, you are the man!... very smooth... i think whoever reads that on that site will be looking through books in haste... trying to see if your right ...hehe... way to fuck with the weak minded!!.. GO RAMEUS -EX1 Posted by: Adder_Noir May 4 2004, 07:07 AM Get the hell in there mate, nice one Let's see his reaction when he realises he's met someone who has done their homework!! Posted by: Rameus May 4 2004, 09:12 AM Ha! I'm not sure what his response is yet, either my IP address has been blocked from their forum, or it is down right now. It wouldn't be the first Christian forum I've been banned from for making a post that calls into question the Christ fable. Here is the link if any of you want to try it: http://www.christianviewpoints.com/message-board-forum/ Rameus Posted by: Adder_Noir May 4 2004, 09:52 AM Here is his reply. I had no problems getting on the site. Looks like you rattled his cage alright Currently I have begun reading "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. I would recommend it for anyone who questions the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus the Christ. BTW Rameus, you said: Quote: 1. The Josephus account is a known forgery by Eusebius, so that one is irrelevant. I should point out that this opinion was once circulated by one or two minor scholars and has been soundly debunked by a plethora of academics, the basis for the opinon was quite factually destroyed. I am not surprised that the idea still floats around out there, but i am surprised that the issue is not more thoroughly researched before being blindly accepted - it causes me to wonder at motive. His immediate choice to go on the defensive causes me to question his motives. I hate all their lies. They don't appear to like being confronted with facts. Unsurprising given that the religion is based on fabrications. Posted by: Rameus May 4 2004, 10:52 AM Alright I was able to get back on the forum. Here's what the degenerate twit said, my response follows it. So many of these reverends rely on apologists to do their thinking for them. That's like allowing the Ebola virus to do your healing for you. Rameus QUOTE RevJP (moderator) Joined: 26 May 2003 Posts: 937 Location: CA Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 6:59 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently I have begun reading "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. I would recommend it for anyone who questions the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus the Christ. BTW Rameus, you said: Quote: QUOTE 1. The Josephus account is a known forgery by Eusebius, so that one is irrelevant. I should point out that this opinion was once circulated by one or two minor scholars and has been soundly debunked by a plethora of academics, the basis for the opinon was quite factually destroyed. I am not surprised that the idea still floats around out there, but i am surprised that the issue is not more thoroughly researched before being blindly accepted - it causes me to wonder at motive. _________________ May the Lord bless you and keep you. May He make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He look toward you and give you peace. Num 6:24 QUOTE Rameus (Newbie Alert) Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 3 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 10:35 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (by RevJP) Quote: QUOTE BTW Rameus, you said: Quote: 1. The Josephus account is a known forgery by Eusebius, so that one is irrelevant. I should point out that this opinion was once circulated by one or two minor scholars and has been soundly debunked by a plethora of academics, the basis for the opinon was quite factually destroyed. I am not surprised that the idea still floats around out there, but i am surprised that the issue is not more thoroughly researched before being blindly accepted - it causes me to wonder at motive. You question my "motive" because we disagree in opinion regarding the veracity of the Josephus account? That's seems to me to be a slight overreaction on your part, after all God did bless each of us with our own intellects, presumably to use did he not? Now to address your other comments. I'm not sure that I agree with your term "minor scholars" when referring to the many academics who have analyzed the Josephus account and declared it to be a forgery, myself included. "Minor scholar" is an aspersion, a tactic typically used to detract from another person’s opinion by calling into question their authority on the subject matter. I tend to shy away from labeling scholars as "major" or "minor" based solely upon their ideological beliefs, but rather upon the veracity and exhaustive nature of their assertions. Many of the people who engage in these aspersion tactics do so because they do not possess the requisite intellect to engage the issues in a constructive, mature, and academic nature. From your other posts I am quite convinced that you are very capable intellectually, so I think it is beneath you to engage in the use of aspersions in any theological debate. You said: Quote: QUOTE I should point out that this opinion was once circulated by one or two minor scholars and has been soundly debunked by a plethora of academics, the basis for the opinon was quite factually destroyed. "Soundly debunked" is quite subjective in this case isn't it? What you define as a "sound debunking" I might (and do) define as a very weak counter argument that is not based on evidence, but rather on ideological beliefs. Many of these "debunkers" believe the Josephus account solely because they want to, whereas I do not believe the Josephus account because I can rationally see for myself that it is very clearly a forgery. You also said: Quote: QUOTE I am not surprised that the idea still floats around out there, but i am surprised that the issue is not more thoroughly researched before being blindly accepted For some reason sir you seem to be under the impression that I am a man who accepts arguments blindly, without any research or intellectual processes on my part. This could not possibly be further from the truth. I have the works of Josephus sitting right here on my bookshelf, just as I have the works of Eusebius, Saint Augustine, and all of the other early Christian apologists and writers. I engage in theological research and contemplation on a daily basis, so I certainly do not agree with your assertion that I have “blindly accepted” anything. It is not in my nature to believe anything because it is written, but rather because my investigations and research reveal it to be the truth. I think it might be a bit irresponsible on your part to assume that I am not educated in Christian theology simply because I have identified the "debunking" of the Josephus forgery as irrational, ideologically based propaganda. Have you read the accounts of Josephus, Origin, Eusebius and the other relevant church fathers yourself? If you have not, then might it be a bit hasty for you to dismiss my conclusions without ever having researched the matter for yourself. And if you have read them, please explain your case for why you believe the Josephus account to be authentic. I’m always very interested in hearing educated points of view that diverge from my own. Below I will copy and paste my basic argument promoting my thesis that the account of Josephus is a forgery. I want to note that these are entirely my own thoughts; this is not some propaganda I have copied online: The brief account of Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Christ is an absolute forgery; to deny this is a completely untenable position. Some respectable Christian academics even agree with this assertion. Only the most fundamental ideologists propose that the Josephus account is genuine. Josephus wrote Antiquities circa 90 C.E., approximately 50-60 years after the (alleged) death of Jesus Christ. His (alleged) account reads: "At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ [Messiah]. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time." Please also be aware that original copies of Josephus do not exist, only copies made many centuries later by Christian scribes. The first problem is that Josephus was an orthodox Jew, he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even reiterated quite authoritatively by the early Christian father Origin circa 220 C.E. From the account allegedly attributed to Josephus, it would seem quite out of character for him not to accept Jesus. He refers to the Christians as "received the truth", and admits Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. If Jesus were the Messiah and his religion true in Josephus' eyes, why did he remain an orthodox Jew? It doesn't make sense, unless you are a Christian forger inserting this passage centuries later. Another problem is that the passage regarding Jesus does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ is not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death. However, if you are a Christian scribe trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus' work many centuries later; you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage appears to be written by a Christian not a Jew who never converted to the faith. In other words, it was not written by Josephus. The next problem with the Josephus account is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote Josephus' account of Jesus. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not the account regarding Christ. Origin in particular should have quoted this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsus circa 220 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including the very same book that the forged Josephus account later appeared in. He doesn't mention a single word of Josephus' miraculous account of Jesus. In fact Origin expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). But very clearly in the (forged) account by Josephus he proclaims Jesus the Christ. The only way this makes any sense is if the Josephus account was forged after Origins lifetime. It seems to me that apologists who were going to great lengths to convince people of the legitimacy of the Christian religion would surely quote this account by Josephus if it were available in their time, especially since they freely quoted his other accounts of history. In a phrase, it just doesn't make sense. The first person to quote this (forged) Josephus account was the church father Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some Catholic scholars as the father of "pious fraud". The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius passage mentioning Josephus as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said: "This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." It is extremely important to reiterate that the original copies of the Josephus account do not exist. This is very important because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today. They refer to it as "pious fraud". To demonstrate this I will provide an example with a quote from the early Church father, Bishop of Corinth Dionysius (as recorded by Eusebius in the 4th century): "When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others...Small wonder that some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts." Thus not only do we have a displayed track record of forgery by the early Christian church in this time period, an admission of forgery by the Catholic Church during this time period, and the non-existence of original copies of Josephus, but we also have the logical quandary posed by the [alleged] account of Josephus. Why would Josephus admit that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and that his movement was the “truth”, and yet reject Christianity for his entire life? Josephus was a pious Jew, certainly if he believed as his forged account indicates then he would have accepted his Messiah. He did not. It simply does not make any sense at all, unless you consider that the passage was forged centuries after the fact by Eusebius, which it most certainly was. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe that the Josephus account is accurate or written by Josephus himself. Thus it is my conclusion that the Josephus account of Jesus entirely spurious. If my research, logical deduction, and articulation regarding this issue constitute a “blind faith” in your opinion sir, then I would certainly like to hear your definition of an “educated opinion”. Very respectfully, Rameus _________________ Posted by: Rameus May 4 2004, 10:56 AM I like to be "extra special nice" to these apologists and reverends, that way when they eventually ban me (and they ALWAYS do) everyone can plainly understand the reason. Fuck with the clergy and make them look like the bad guys, that hopefully gets the sheep questioning. Ha! Rameus Posted by: SteveFDL May 4 2004, 11:14 AM QUOTE (Adder_Noir @ May 4 2004, 11:52 AM) Here is his reply. I had no problems getting on the site. Looks like you rattled his cage alright Currently I have begun reading "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. I would recommend it for anyone who questions the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus the Christ. BTW Rameus, you said: Quote: 1. The Josephus account is a known forgery by Eusebius, so that one is irrelevant. I should point out that this opinion was once circulated by one or two minor scholars and has been soundly debunked by a plethora of academics, the basis for the opinon was quite factually destroyed. I am not surprised that the idea still floats around out there, but i am surprised that the issue is not more thoroughly researched before being blindly accepted - it causes me to wonder at motive. His immediate choice to go on the defensive causes me to question his motives. I hate all their lies. They don't appear to like being confronted with facts. Unsurprising given that the religion is based on fabrications. Origen, as well, knew Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. Posted by: SteveFDL May 4 2004, 11:27 AM In Book 20 of the Antiquities, Josephus states: "...Jesus, who was called Christ..." One thing Christian apologetics fail to comment on is the fact that Josephus spent much more time on other so called messiahs...even John the Baptizer. Josephus pretty much brushed off this minor blip on the radar screen (jesus) to get to the messiahs making a more noticeable splash. I don't think may Christians know that John was as well known as he was. In any case, excellent job, Rameus. Posted by: Adder_Noir May 4 2004, 02:48 PM A fine piece of work. Have you ever thought of becoming a spy? Good strategy being nice to them. It further exposes their motives when they ban people. Christian boards are not exactly a good place to go for free speech!!! Posted by: me! May 4 2004, 05:33 PM Rameus FOR PRESIDENT!! Posted by: Rameus May 4 2004, 06:11 PM (by Steve) QUOTE In Book 20 of the Antiquities, Josephus states: "...Jesus, who was called Christ..." One thing Christian apologetics fail to comment on is the fact that Josephus spent much more time on other so called messiahs...even John the Baptizer. Josephus pretty much brushed off this minor blip on the radar screen (jesus) to get to the messiahs making a more noticeable splash. I don't think may Christians know that John was as well known as he was. In any case, excellent job, Rameus. It's funny you say that. I was just rereading Josephus' ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ Books 18-20 today. That shit reads like Monty Python Life of Brian. Ha! It's hysterical reading it all over again after having just recently watched the movie. Too funny. Rameus Posted by: Vixentrox May 4 2004, 06:13 PM Nice work! Bravo! Posted by: fortunehooks May 4 2004, 07:56 PM rameus,great job,i enjoyed how you had to handle yourself in the house of the establishment. i,myself couldn't do it. i don't go to places that ban free speech and difference of opinion. i must say,you fucked up the clergy's day,and ministry and possibly his family life. that was beautiful to read. Posted by: Rameus May 4 2004, 10:33 PM Alright, sorry I'm going to post this big long load of shit. I won't take it personally if nobody reads it, but I think it's so fucking funny that I just have to post it in case anyone else here enjoys such twisted entertainments as I. I started another thread in that Christian forum where I very nicely "asked some tough questions". One of their other moderators, who is a theology student is getting severely pissed off at being shown up for the arrogant twit that he is. If anyone is interested I am pasting the whole mad tea party below: Rameus QUOTE Rameus Not So Newbie Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 9 Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 9:33 pm Post subject: Christians, I come in peace... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello everyone, I am Rameus, and as you are no doubt aware I am new to your forum. I am not a Christian, rather more of an agnostic of sorts. You seem like a reasonably tolerant and open minded community, so I thought I'd crash down into your midst, open up the hatch and verify that the natives are indeed friendly. In reality I have stopped by with something of an agenda. From time to time I like to hear the Christian side of various issues, and on occasion I like to pose thoughtful questions and presumably receive thoughtful responses from various groups of Christians. This being said I will jump right into my questions. If they offend anyone then please let me apologize in advance, it is certainly not my intention to do so. I pose these questions to you because they are questions that I have not had addressed with any level of seriousness by Christians of any sort. Most of the people I have posed the questions to either get offended by them or avoid them altogether. The few people who have bothered to answer them in any way typically spout off a dozen bible quotes and neglect to articulate any type of personal response. Some of my Christian friends and family also seem either unable or unwilling to address them, so I thought perhaps an online community might digest them more seriously. This is my hope, we shall see if it has any basis in reality. 1. Why do you consider the bible to be the word of God to the exclusion of all other spiritual texts? Why is Christianity the only true religion? 2. Did you study any other religions in depth before devoting your life to Christianity? If not, why do you feel that you are equipped to claim Christianity to be absolute truth, and all other religions to be false when you have not taken the time to make an unbiased study of them for yourself? 3. Why should anyone give more credence to the statements in the bible than they do to statements in other spiritual texts? 4. Why do you believe [presumably] historical figures like Abraham and Moses truly spoke with God, but do not believe that other [presumably] historical figures such as Mohammad or Zarathustra did? Again let me reiterate, it is not my intention to "troll" your online community here and stir up a hornet's nest. I'm honestly interested in understanding how different Christians address these questions. I look forward to hopefully receiving some thoughtful replies. Rameus _________________ "Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu Back to top QUOTE MoJo Big Pit Bull Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Posts: 389 Location: Canada Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 6:04 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome Rameus. I appreciate the spirit in which you've asked these questions and hopefully someone will be able to address them, but I feel I need to give some sort of overview first. Many people who seek the same answers come to these boards, but will go away unsatisfied because the answer is not to be had in these questions. To understand why we believe as we do is to understand what the word "faith" means. This is a hope born in something that can't be seen or touched. Generally, atheists and agnostics, if they think about God, think about him in terms of absolute, tangible proof and it is not to be had. At least not in any scientific manner. Faith is a matter of the heart. So why do some of us believe? People come to this faith in God for many reasons. We have all had different life experiences which have ultimately led us to the only answer we find possible to explain our existence. We, by some spiritual revelation, are drawn to God. This is not something that can ever be satisfactorily explained to those who have never experienced it. If I asked you what it was like to stand on the moon, could you tell me, and of course the answer is no. When people question why we have faith, it is like trying to explain to someone what it is like to stand on the moon, but of course they can't really know because they have never experienced it for themselves. There will always be that bridge between us which is not possible to traverse with a known language. What you ask us to do is provide, tangible, tactile proof. The only thing which will satisfy hardcore unbelievers is a miracle that can be substansiated 100% and it is just not forthcoming. And so you can ask all the questions in the world, but will never get satisfactory answers, or most appropriately, will not accept the answers we give you without this faith. Faith is something believed in that cannot be seen or touched. It is therefore not possible for us to give you proof. We can give you some evidence, but not proof. And then it is a case of interpretation of the evidence and there are as many views on that as there are individuals. Faith is something that you have to come to within yourself. I cannot explain another's faith, only my own. There is the miracle of the earth to be seen, but unbelievers call it science. There is the miracle of life to be seen, but unbelievers call it evolution. Faith is a hope in things not seen and heard. They are hidden. And God seeks people who take this leap off the cliff, trusting he will catch them. We, who believe, have taken the leap. How can any one individual explain it. The answers for yourself, lie within you and not with us. What do you have faith in? Is it only what you can see, hear, taste and touch? Answers come from within and what each of us perceive to be true. If you genuinely seek them in your heart, God will find you and not the other way around. Back to top QUOTE splazzatch Moderator Joined: 07 Aug 2002 Posts: 1697 Location: Indiana,PA, USA Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 6:46 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome Raemus. I am splazzatch, and I am a moderator on this board. I am glad you found this board and I hope you enjoy your time here. I hope you continue to feel able to ask any question you have on this board. We will do our best to answer it. You have hit something I have spent a lot of time researching and attempting to deal with myself. I currently have a Minor in Comparative Religions at my University and a Major in Criminology. I can honestly say Christianity is the only true religion because it is the only one to have zero contradictions, and has the historical authenticity to back it up. In your other post you claim that some of the historical writers were forgeries...may I ask where you got that information? Because everything I have ever read, both secular and Christian claims that Joesephus (sp?) is historically accurate. When we look at other religions we see contradictions, inaccuracies, and flat out deception. For instance if we look at Islam...Which Islam is true? Saudi Arabia claims that it has the truest version of Islam...yet if we follow their example and we look at the life of Muhammed we see that they claim to live like him, but he never said all women had to wear veils, he simply said that no man except him can look at his wife. But if we look at Western Islam we see Men and women are equal...which is also not what Muhammed said. If we look at Buddhism it is all about living a life to earn liberation yet, they say that it is impossible to get Liberation (moksha) in this life...but if you don't then everything you do in this life will come back to haunt you. You are screwed either way. Hinduism has 330 million Gods...and a Hindu person picks one to be their favorite, which they believe all other gods are a manifestation of that god. It is all relative to what the person believes. There is nothing absolute within Hinduism. I can go on but for the sake of time I'll stop there. Now, back to Christianity. Not only does Christianity take the least amount of faith (I only have to worship one God who does it all) but it is also the most historically accurate faith. Your question about the bible being the scripture and the others not being is because simply put we know that our texts that we have today, are exactly the same as the texts that Jesus would have had. If we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern Hebrew bibles, they are the same. Therefore we know that what we have now, is what they had then, and can be trusted. This can not be said for the Hindu Vedas, or the Confucian Annalects, or anything else. I personally, have studied many other religions: Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, Islam. All of which I find to be lacking or contradicting. Next, personally it comes down to this. If the bible is true, and everything that is said to happen in it did happen then I am forced to make a decision. My decision is to either reject the truth in the Bible and toss it all away, despite the amount of evidence for it. Or I can accept the truth that there is a God in heaven who loves me so much that he sent his only Son to die for me. So that I can be with Him for all eternity. Either the Bible is true and God loves us or the bible is false and there is nothing that is absolutely true in this world. I hope I answered your questions and that you find this informative. If I totally lost you and you need me to explain some of it more indepth then let me know and I'll try. _________________ http://www.theknot.com/co_pwpa.htm?coupleid=105936330636704 Back to top QUOTE Rameus Not So Newbie Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 9 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 11:09 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (by MoJo) QUOTE Quote: To understand why we believe as we do is to understand what the word "faith" means. This is a hope born in something that can't be seen or touched. Generally, atheists and agnostics, if they think about God, think about him in terms of absolute, tangible proof and it is not to be had. At least not in any scientific manner. Faith is a matter of the heart. Thank you for your thoughtful response Madame. I agree entirely that faith is something based entirely on the lack of evidence. I also completely agree with you that God is something that cannot be examined by science nor his/her existence proved or disproved in any way. I think perhaps I was not explicit enough with my questions. What I was trying to ask with my questions is why you have faith in the univalent logical of Christianity? Or to put it another way, why do some people believe that Christianity and Christianity only is the proper way to love and worship God? Why is the bible the only truth? Why can no other spiritual text describe God, merely in different and yet equally valid ways? That was the spirit of the questions I was hoping to address. I apologize if my questions were overly vague in this regard. Thank you again for your kind responses. Rameus _________________ "Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu Back to top QUOTE Karaite Puppy Joined: 27 May 2003 Posts: 219 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 12:46 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE Quote: 1. Why do you consider the bible to be the word of God to the exclusion of all other spiritual texts? Why is Christianity the only true religion? Part A: Well, while we must all admit that for the most part, when we are dealing with such question as the existence of god(s), the spiritual nature of humans, and other things of that sort, the evidences can be subjective. However, we also know that naturally, most evidences of things will be subjective, even if we apply as much "logic and reason" to it. So, I will have to say that, as far as I have been able to observe, the Bible contains an enourmous amount of wisdom, wisdom which I don't see coming from just anybody trying to scam people. Yes, scam artists are smart people, but this type of wisdom is not geared towards scaming anyone, in the NT, especially, the whole thing is geared towards caring for one another -- and caring even for those who CARE NOT for us. The Bible contains much information about human nature -- throughout the stories, you find examples of how humans behave, and we are warned time and time again, to not be like that. A lot of people like to criticize the fact that some stories in the Bible seem so horrible, but is this not human nature? That we are capable of such things? The culmination of the books makes it clear to us, that we must learn to LOVE, before we could reach peace. In the words a famous rapper... "words can'st explain how I feel". Indeed, words can't explain how much wisdom I see in the Scriptures. Part B: I have read other religious texts, such as the Qu'ran, and parts of the Vedas, and other Eastern religious books. I know that the Bible contains some stories that might seem fantastic, but for the most part, they are realistic, when it comes to human nature. Also, even secular scholars have come to the conclusions that these stories are true, just that they were not caused by a god, rather that they were caused by nature -- coincidentally, in favor of these people. But the Hindu texts, to me, seem more fantastic, and are less realistic. I am sure I have not read enough of them to make a claim that they don't deal with real life, but as far as what I have heard (from people who believe in them), I am not attracted to them. The religious beliefs, the doctrines, they don't appeal to my sense of reality. Beliefs like reincarnation do not seem to make much reason. Now, I don't mean to say that there is no wisdom in other religions, because that is not true. I believe that every ancient religion has some truth to it, and some wisdom -- some more than others -- but I don't think they are pure. Why should there be more than one god? That is one of the problems with Hinduism and other Eastern religions. Why is there no god? That is my problem with Buddhism. It doesn't make sense to say that "karma" exists, yet tell me that there is no one in charge of delivering it. That is just a little of what I can say. QUOTE Quote: 2. Did you study any other religions in depth before devoting your life to Christianity? If not, why do you feel that you are equipped to claim Christianity to be absolute truth, and all other religions to be false when you have not taken the time to make an unbiased study of them for yourself? A: I studied Islam hand in hand with Christianity, four years ago. It was the testimony of the Qu'ran that turned me to Christianity. Islam speaks of Jesus as the Messiah, and speaks highly of him, and even of the Bible. Yet, in other areas, it tries to argue that they are not much, in comparison to Mohammed. The argumentation is highly flawed, in light of the Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, and some other historical facts. This lead me to believe that Christianity is worthy of a better look. After a while, I continued to study Islam, but I was no longer interested in becoming a Muslim. QUOTE Quote: 3. Why should anyone give more credence to the statements in the bible than they do to statements in other spiritual texts? Well, as I said, the Bible deals with human nature, and gives many examples of it. It also has much wisdom about how the world works, and gives us guidelines for us to learn to overcome our own flaws. The Bible is also more of a historical record of humanity, than many like to make it seem. Sure, stories like Adam and Eve may seem like fables, and the Flood, and some other similar stories, but the truth is, these stories are not that far from reality. In fact, many secular scholars have accepted them as likely, and have gone out to explain them in naturalistic terms. I believe the Bible deals with the real life, more than any other texts. I have seen how SOME hindu practices have become popular, such as yoga, but there is no other book that has had more influence in the world's societies than the Bible. Just look at the laws, for the most part, the Bible has been the foundation of most laws. Sure, some laws have become repugnant to society, but whether these laws are good or not, is subject to much discussion -- especially when you see how society has become so corrupt, and so self-destructive. QUOTE Quote: 4. Why do you believe [presumably] historical figures like Abraham and Moses truly spoke with God, but do not believe that other [presumably] historical figures such as Mohammad or Zarathustra did? Well, I believe Mohammed spoke with someone other than God. I have read his book, the Qu'ran, and I have read much Islamic commentaries, to come to the conclusion that Mohammed was not a prophet from the same line of prophets in the Bible. So, by default, if the prophets of the Bible are from God, then Mohammed cannot be from God. And this is by the same testimony of Mohammed -- for he says in the Qu'ran, 'if this book (Bible) had not been sent before, then my testimony would not be valid' (paraphrased, I don't have the verse right off my head). If you need the verse, I can look it up, and get it to you. Zarathustra? I am not sure who that is. I know of Zoroaster, but not that other one. Well, I hope this is more or less what you were looking for. Blessings! _________________ "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD. "To know wisdom and instruction, to discern the sayings of understanding, to receive instruction in wise behavior; to give prudence to the naive, to the youth knowledge and discretion." Back to top QUOTE Rameus Not So Newbie Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 9 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 1:20 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: Welcome Raemus. I am splazzatch, and I am a moderator on this board. I am glad you found this board and I hope you enjoy your time here. I hope you continue to feel able to ask any question you have on this board. We will do our best to answer it. Thank you for your warm welcome. It’s always great to hear (or see) the many various opinions regarding the nature of God. Theology truly asks some of the greatest, most ambitious, and timeless questions about the human condition. (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: I can honestly say Christianity is the only true religion because it is the only one to have zero contradictions, and has the historical authenticity to back it up. Zero contradictions? You must be reading a different version of the bible than the five on my bookshelf. Personally, I have a difficult time not finding contradictions in the bible. Which parts of the bible do you assert are proven to be historically accurate? (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: In your other post you claim that some of the historical writers were forgeries...may I ask where you got that information? Because everything I have ever read, both secular and Christian claims that Joesephus (sp?) is historically accurate. I read the accounts for myself and drew my own conclusions. I have posted my response to this in the other thread. I find that if I rely on the writings of Christian or Atheist scholars that I am subjected to the personal beliefs and agendas of the authors. When it comes to religion, people tend to interpret evidence to conform to their own beliefs. I personally prefer to read the accounts myself so I can remove this layer of bias and come to my own interpretation. As a rather brilliant German mathematician once said: "A man should look for what is, not for what he thinks should be." (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: When we look at other religions we see contradictions, inaccuracies, and flat out deception. For instance if we look at Islam...Which Islam is true? Which Christianity is "true" for that matter? Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Southern Baptists, First Baptists, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Episcopal, or one of the other 400+ Protestant sects? The scimitar cuts both ways does it not? (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: If we look at Buddhism it is all about living a life to earn liberation yet, they say that it is impossible to get Liberation (moksha) in this life...but if you don't then everything you do in this life will come back to haunt you. You are screwed either way. With all due respect I think that is a rather vulgar over-simplification of the Buddhist faith. In my opinion a more fair and yet still concise description would be that they live their lives to be good to others, do good deeds, to teach, and to attain knowledge and enlightenment to liberate themselves from the bondage of this world. Not so different from Christianity in a very general sense. (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: Hinduism has 330 million Gods...and a Hindu person picks one to be their favorite, which they believe all other gods are a manifestation of that god. It is all relative to what the person believes. There is nothing absolute within Hinduism. I think most Hindu's are more monotheistic than you believe. At the most cursory level Hinduism seems like a polytheistic belief system perhaps. But in reality they are more of a monotheistic philosophy believing God is so great and infinite that it can only be described by its many small parts. Each God represents a quality of the one great divinity. The different “incarnations” represent when God decided to send one of his “sons” or “children” down to assist humankind. This is much like the Christian concept of archangels, or the incarnation of Jesus Christ as God made flesh. One thing I respect about Hinduism, other than the great antiquity of the faith, is that they have absolute tolerance for all other forms of religion. Hindu's believe that Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all "true" worshippers of God. Can the reverse be said? I think not. My personal opinion is that a faith that is making absolute claims, such as that they are the only true faith, is being deceptive at worst and naive at best. As many people point out, God is not quantifiable, or scientifically observable, so it's seems quite ludicrous to me that anyone would be seeking absolutes in a field as completely open as theology. How can any religion responsibly claim to contain the only path to God when God is so much greater than any human effort to describe him/her could ever be? Who is to say which faiths are correct and which aren't? Who is to say that any faith is absolutely correct? Who is to say any faith is absolutely wrong? All religions claim to have spoken with God, all claim that their spiritual texts are inspired, who is lying? How do you decide something as infinitely important as this? To me, the Hindu's reluctance to make absolutist claims is a sign of their spiritual maturity, not of the invalidity of their religion. This is of course merely my opinion. (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: If we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern Hebrew bibles, they are the same. Therefore we know that what we have now, is what they had then, and can be trusted. This can not be said for the Hindu Vedas, or the Confucian Annalects, or anything else. Most of the extant New Testament documents date to the third century A.D., some date to the second and a scant few others are believed to date to the first. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the Old Testament documents were approximately as old as the New Testament and in some cases even younger. The Dead Sea Scrolls unearthed at Qumran mostly date to the first and second centuries B.C.E., and a few as far back as 250 B.C.E. So really the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls in large part match up with the Old Testament is not terribly miraculous, we are only talking about a few centuries here. If complete biblical texts from 3000 B.C.E. were dug up and matched the Old Testament of today perfectly then I would say that might be something of an accomplishment. What I'm getting at is that it seems you are implying that the various religious texts agreeing with one another through various periods of history is unique to Christianity. If that is your implication then I must respectfully disagree with you. The many versions of the Egyptian Pyramid texts that date back to 2500 B.C.E. agree with each other. The many versions of the Egyptian Coffin texts that date back to 2000 B.C.E. agree with each other. The many versions of the Egyptian Book of Going Forth by Day that date back to 1500 B.C.E. agree with each other. Does that imply that they "they can be trusted" as valid religious expressions of God? Have you not read the many early Christian writings that were not canonized (into the bible) by the Egyptian Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria? They certainly diverge in many important ways with some of the books that were canonized into the bible. Also I think it is important to note that the Hebrew Torah and the Old Testament are certainly not identical by any means. (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: Next, personally it comes down to this. If the bible is true, and everything that is said to happen in it did happen then I am forced to make a decision. My decision is to either reject the truth in the Bible and toss it all away, despite the amount of evidence for it. Or I can accept the truth that there is a God in heaven who loves me so much that he sent his only Son to die for me. So that I can be with Him for all eternity. Which son? The bible says God sent many, and certainly many of the more ancient religions worshipped sons of God sent to save humanity. So how do you decide which one is the correct one to worship? How do you decide that the other sons of God are not to be worshipped? "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. And the Lord said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.' The Nephilim (also translated 'giants') were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." [Genesis VI:1-4] So apparently the "sons of God" described in the Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and many pagan religions could be from God also? So why are they false if the "sons of God" they worship are also from YHWH as Jesus Christ is? I've never understood how there can be dozens of other "sons of God" that came before Christ and yet they are somehow considered to be "false". I'm sure there is a logical reason; I've just never heard one that explained the concept adequately to me. (by splazzatch) QUOTE Quote: Either the Bible is true and God loves us or the bible is false and there is nothing that is absolutely true in this world. Is there not the possibility that some other spiritual text might describe God? Why must it be "the bible or bust?" Sorry to answer your questions with so many questions of my own, I suppose that's the nature of theology. I do appreciate your thoughtful response and look forward to reading more in the future. Thanks for taking the time to chat with an old codger like myself. Rameus _________________ "Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu Back to top QUOTE Exodus 20:5 House Cat Joined: 10 Feb 2004 Posts: 171 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 2:17 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome Rameus!! I am glad to have a well read & informed person on Christianiy/theology as yourself, who is a non Christian - Free Thinker like me. I must say that I am quite impressed with your knowledge & well informed arguments. I do believe I will enjoy reading your posts. I believe that Christianity is such a conceited, closed-minded belief. This is the part that really gets me.....If you're Christian, you believe that anyone who has not accepted Jesus as the Son of God (who is Not Christian [Unbeliever]) is going to Hell. You walk around all your life believing that you will go to heaven, fly with the angels, live in eternal bliss.....but ALL your fellow humans you shared time on this Earth with who don't believe what you believe will spend Eternity Burning in Hell, pure misery, absolute horror. Christianity really makes their God out to be a very selfish, conceited, self-absorbed ___________(fill in the blank)....I'll just say "Bully" That said, I don't mean to imply that I share the same thoughts as you. ....anyways, Welcome! _________________ "Children are naive-they trust everyone. School is bad enough, but, if you put a child anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're asking for trouble." -FRANK ZAPPA Back to top QUOTE Rameus Not So Newbie Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 9 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 2:33 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Karaite, I enjoyed reading through your post, I found it very informative. I think it's great that you have taken the time to read some of the other religious texts of the world. Multiple points of view can always helps round out a person’s perspective in my opinion. I thought I would address a couple of your points: (by Karaite) QUOTE Quote: So, I will have to say that, as far as I have been able to observe, the Bible contains an enourmous amount of wisdom, I agree there is a lot of wisdom in the bible. But then again there is a lot of wisdom in other books like the Tao Te Ching. In my opinion the Tao Te Ching contains a comparable amount of wisdom to the bible, and in a much more concise format (81 pages). The Book of Going Forth by Day written by the Egyptians in the second millennium B.C.E. is absolutely beautiful in many ways, and it may surprise you to discover how similar their ideas of God and the afterlife are to the Christian concepts. They also believed in Baptism, a Eucharist (of bread and beer), they had also developed the 10 commandments, they had their own version of the Holy Trinity, they also worshipped a "son of God", they were also judged by God in the afterlife (their heart weighed on the scale of life), etc. To the Egyptians “Hell” was considered oblivion, to have their soul destroyed for being wicked in life. An absolutely fascinating civilization, the Egyptians. I always find it interesting to read how different cultures in antiquity described the Universe around them. Some of it is truly insightful. (by Karaite) QUOTE Quote: Now, I don't mean to say that there is no wisdom in other religions, because that is not true. I believe that every ancient religion has some truth to it, and some wisdom -- some more than others -- but I don't think they are pure. Why should there be more than one god? This is the same concept as the Holy Trinity is it not? (by Karaite) QUOTE Quote: Beliefs like reincarnation do not seem to make much reason. But a man named Jesus Christ died, resurrected, went to heaven, and will return incarnate again someday? I see a pretty blurry line between this concept and the concept of reincarnation... (by Karaite) QUOTE Quote: Zarathustra? I am not sure who that is. I know of Zoroaster, but not that other one. They are the same Persian personage. (by Karaite) QUOTE Quote: Well, I believe Mohammed spoke with someone other than God. I have read his book, the Qu'ran, and I have read much Islamic commentaries, to come to the conclusion that Mohammed was not a prophet from the same line of prophets in the Bible. So, by default, if the prophets of the Bible are from God, then Mohammed cannot be from God. I agree with you that Muhammad's message and the message of YHWH in the Old Testament are quite different. However I also find it extremely challenging to reconcile the Old Testament YHWH described in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy with the loving Jesus Christ of the New Testament. So by your logic I would probably discard both the New Testament and the Qu'ran. Thank you for your thoughtful comments Karaite, I enjoyed reading and digesting them. Rameus _________________ "Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu Back to top QUOTE Karaite Puppy Joined: 27 May 2003 Posts: 219 Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 3:56 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE Quote: I agree there is a lot of wisdom in the bible. But then again there is a lot of wisdom in other books like the Tao Te Ching. In my opinion the Tao Te Ching contains a comparable amount of wisdom to the bible, and in a much more concise format (81 pages). The Book of Going Forth by Day written by the Egyptians in the second millennium B.C.E. is absolutely beautiful in many ways, and it may surprise you to discover how similar their ideas of God and the afterlife are to the Christian concepts. They also believed in Baptism, a Eucharist (of bread and beer), they had also developed the 10 commandments, they had their own version of the Holy Trinity, they also worshipped a "son of God", they were also judged by God in the afterlife (their heart weighed on the scale of life), etc. To the Egyptians “Hell” was considered oblivion, to have their soul destroyed for being wicked in life. An absolutely fascinating civilization, the Egyptians. I always find it interesting to read how different cultures in antiquity described the Universe around them. Some of it is truly insightful. This is not something new to me. I am aware of the religious practices of the ancients, and many of their similarities to Judaism and Christianity. I actually feel confident with this fact, because it supports the doctrine of worldwide knowledge of God. Sure, as evidence are subjective, a skeptic would see this as evidence of a fable becoming popular, and then being copied by other cultures. But in a more objective manner, the fact that the entire earth perceives the existence of a god, is support to the belief that at one point, our perception actually existed as knowledge. If you read the extra-biblical writings of the Rabbis, you will find that they believed that God gave humanity a set of instructions at different times -- the most famous of them, prior to the Torah, was the Noahide Laws, which included some of the most basic human laws. These laws were then passed down through the generations, and then they were later "changed" or ignored. So, the fact that these beliefs are more widely spread, is only a little boost to my confidence. QUOTE Quote: This is the same concept as the Holy Trinity is it not? I am not sure if I should respond to that comment, so I will leave it to the Trinitarians to answer it. I don't believe in the Trinity. QUOTE Quote: But a man named Jesus Christ died, resurrected, went to heaven, and will return incarnate again someday? I see a pretty blurry line between this concept and the concept of reincarnation... It might be blurry to you, because you probably have not delved into the doctrines of ressurection, and life-after death. But to me, it is clearly different. The belief of reincaranation dictates a "life as a different person", no recollection -- except some minor glitches, where you get a few flashes of the past, which lead you to nothing at all -- of the past lives. It is only a countless repetition of birth, suffering, and death. Resurrection is completely different. You die only once -- though, there is such thing we call 'the second death', it is not the same type of death as humans die. You get to keep most of your memories, though you will lose some, due to the fact that you will have to be happy -- and some memories might not be pleasant. But, then again, there might be another solution, and you might get to keep your memories entirely. I guess there are many more things that can be said, but I believe this should be enough to show the difference. QUOTE Quote: They are the same Persian personage. I thought so. I know I recognized the name, and that was the first one to come to mind, so I thought I would mention him. Anyway, Zoroaster is a personage I would think was possibly used by God, for a people and a time. But I am not sure I can give you an educated opinion of his religion, since I did not get to study much about him. Also, the fact that his religion is pretty much dead (by exception of a few surviving followers), I am inclined to see it with less interest. I mean, the accomplishments aren't so much, in comparison to the accomplishments of other religions such as Islam. QUOTE Quote: I agree with you that Muhammad's message and the message of YHWH in the Old Testament are quite different. However I also find it extremely challenging to reconcile the Old Testament YHWH described in the books of Levi |