[AboveAverageJoe]

I always find it very disturbing when some Christians pray directly to Jesus, same for when Catholics pray to Saints. I think it is very strange to pray to a dead and possibly fictitious character for divine intervention. If there is a God he could care less about human interactions and he has a stict lassez-faire attitude to the affairs of the world.

[Mage]

(09-22-2016 02:53 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

If there is a God he could care less about human interactions and he has a stict lassez-faire attitude to the affairs of the world.

Lassez- faire is the only way God can be just.

Otherwise God would be like a mother who only cares for children who cry the loudest and abandons those who suffer silently.

God is like - "look children I left the food is in the damn fridge just take it and cook it yourselves - you might actually learn something useful while doing it. Share righteously."

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 03:03 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:53 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

If there is a God he could care less about human interactions and he has a stict lassez-faire attitude to the affairs of the world.

Lassez- faire is the only way God can be just.

Otherwise God would be like a mother who only cares for children who cry the loudest and abandons those who suffer silently.

God is like - "look children I left the food is in the damn fridge just take it and cook it yourselves - you might actually learn something useful while doing it. Share righteously."

Which is why I always find it strange when athletes or anyone in competition with others, pray to God for success or thank him for victory. It would be one thing if one prayed for God to give him the inner strength to acheive victory but just straight out asking for victory, isnt that cheating?

When Joe Louis World Heavyweight Champion read a speech written for him during WW2, he ended by saying: "We will win because we are on God's side."
After the speech people told him, "Great job Joe but you flubbed the end. You were supposed to say 'God is on our side.'" He insisted he had phrased it correctly and I would agree.

Reminds me of the Jamaican saying: God loves me, but he don't love you.

[scorpion]

It sounds as if you've made your choice, Mage. Your heart is hardened. But who knows, maybe you will have a change of heart. A man named Paul certainly did. You are not too far gone to return, even as an avowed anti-Christ. His grace is sufficient. I will pray for you.

I will just leave these verses here:

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

1 John 2:22-23 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 10:9-10 - If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

[LordMayorMuffSniff]

(09-22-2016 01:32 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Meanwhile the true nature of God remains unchanged. The true God is like a force of nature - because he is the Creator of all Nature - vengeful to those who ignore it's laws, just in that the vengeance is certain, loving in that justice is applied to all no matter on the amount of praying - knowing and keeping the law of nature - both material and spiritual is all that matters - that is the True God the Jealous God. This is the God of Patriarchy. This is the God that doesn't contradict science. This is the God that seems evil to the wicked and good to the righteous in body mind and spirit. This is God who's beauty is revealed in math and fasting, physics and meditation, chemistry and sexual modesty. Verily few are those who can see both sides of the coin and can comprehend the laws of nature while remembering that they themselves are part of the Nature. Who can simultaneously look at laws of nature from above as God does while also look at themselves from side to their own integrated role in the workings of nature? But a very few are men like that that can be called agents of God.

I think this is fairly accurate tbh. And I maintain that there is no 'evil' in nature. Only 'evil' in the actions of man and our free will.

I personally identify as Catholic, but religion for me is problematic. Say God manifested himself before you and me and told us that chocolate ice cream was his favourite flavour. I interpret him as meaning that chocolate ice cream is the sacred food of God, and must therefore be forbidden to us lowly men. You interpret his words as chocolate ice cream is the holiest of foods, and therefore must be all we consume. This is how religions form. Drastically different interpretations of the same message. And this is if God spoke to us directly, rather we have a select few in history who claim to have been spoken to by God, and now we attempt to interpret their interpretations through their words written in another language thousands of years ago...

This is also what gives religions their value however. The collective interpretation of thousands of years of human existence lightens the load on the individual. A bit like how we don't all need to be mechanical engineers to drive a car, we don't all need to be theologians to see the benefits of religion. Religion provides simple doctrines that allow man to build and work together in the name of God. Yes religion organises. Yes religion controls. But without it, we would be a spattered mess of self serving individuals (which as we are already seeing has drastic effects on society). I have no doubt that many posters on these forums are able to interpret and explore meaning in their existence far removed from the shackles of religion. But for the vast majority of humanity, the worker ants, they need the structured interpretation of God that religion provides.

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 07:27 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It sounds as if you've made your choice, Mage. Your heart is hardened. But who knows, maybe you will have a change of heart. A man named Paul certainly did. You are not too far gone to return, even as an avowed anti-Christ. His grace is sufficient. I will pray for you.

I will just leave these verses here:

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

1 John 2:22-23 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 10:9-10 - If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Why In Matthew 15:21–28, when Jesus encounters a Canaanite woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” ?

Also Jesus tells the Samaratin woman In John 1: 22 "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

This clearly contradicts what he is alleged to have said in your quotes from the same book of John. In fact Jesus preached exclusively to Jews and claimed only to be sent to them, not to any other peoples and certainly not the yet undiscovered world.

He doesn't say Salvation is through him or God but from the Jews.

How do you reconcile these two juxtaposed and clearly conflicting statements?

[scorpion]

(09-22-2016 08:58 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Why In Matthew 15:21–28, when Jesus encounters a Canaanite woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” ?

Also Jesus tells the Samaratin woman In John 1: 22 "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

This clearly contradicts what he is alleged to have said in your quotes from the same book of John. In fact Jesus preached exclusively to Jews and claimed only to be sent to them, not to any other peoples and certainly not the yet undiscovered world.

He doesn't say Salvation is through him or God but from the Jews.

How do you reconcile these two juxtaposed and clearly conflicting statements?

Jesus was fulfilling his purpose as the Messiah of Israel, which at that point meant his ministry was limited to the Jews. This was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jews spent hundreds of years killing and persecuting the prophets God sent, and then they killed their Messiah (Jesus) when he finally arrived. Because of the Jews' unbelief, the Gentiles were "grafted in" to the nation of Israel, so that "Israel" was not limited only to the Jewish people, but included people from the entire world. A nation not of the flesh, but of the spirit. This was the plan from the beginning, but the Jews were too prideful and arrogant to accept that the Messiah would not be theirs exclusively. Essentially, the Jews were mad that what they saw as their inheritance was to be shared with the entire world. They failed to understand that they were not inheritors by the flesh, but inheritors by faith. This is the true meaning of being the "seed of Abraham". There was nothing special about Abraham's physical being, it was his faith that was credited to him as righteousness. The Jews completely missed the point, assuming that simply by being descended physically from Abraham they automatically inherited his righteousness. Christ disabused them of this notion and they killed him for it. As a result, ever since, a partial hardening as come upon the Jews which will not be lifted until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in".

Thus, salvation came "from the Jews" because they were the vehicle through which God chose to reveal the Messiah to the world. Read Romans chapters 9 through 11, it deals entirely with this topic.

[Kid Twist]

(09-22-2016 02:32 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Christians drive themselves in corner with this "total omnipotency" of God.

If God were omnipotent he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son to defeat death (his own creation) - he would just will it - and death would be defeated.

Mage, you are a smart guy, so stop being lazy with things like that.

The mystery of suffering and going to voluntary death is the most profound, amazing part of christianity that differentiates it from all other faiths that make particular claims about God. This is too long to get into here, but suffice to say that you go back the arguments that are ignorant (willing in this case because you know what the answer is) of the fact that free will necessitates strife, struggling and suffering in a created world. We are that created world, so God has to participate in it, and show us the true way to live. This was the only possibility and eventuality with such a God that loves freedom and our free will to choose to be with what is good.

"Willing it" (that is, the perfect state for us without accountability, so to speak) is this childish desire of atheist types that don't want order, a father, or anyone they have to be obedient to (authority). Something that they omit is that with that scenario, we wouldn't have consciousness or even the ability to have this profound conversation, because we would be innocent, childlike automatons for God.

Please stop being lazy, be inquisitive and use your talents, they are there.

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 10:35 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 08:58 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Why In Matthew 15:21–28, when Jesus encounters a Canaanite woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” ?

Also Jesus tells the Samaratin woman In John 1: 22 "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

This clearly contradicts what he is alleged to have said in your quotes from the same book of John. In fact Jesus preached exclusively to Jews and claimed only to be sent to them, not to any other peoples and certainly not the yet undiscovered world.

He doesn't say Salvation is through him or God but from the Jews.

How do you reconcile these two juxtaposed and clearly conflicting statements?

Jesus was fulfilling his purpose as the Messiah of Israel, which at that point meant his ministry was limited to the Jews. This was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jews spent hundreds of years killing and persecuting the prophets God sent, and then they killed their Messiah (Jesus) when he finally arrived. Because of the Jews' unbelief, the Gentiles were "grafted in" to the nation of Israel, so that "Israel" was not limited only to the Jewish people, but included people from the entire world. A nation not of the flesh, but of the spirit. This was the plan from the beginning, but the Jews were too prideful and arrogant to accept that the Messiah would not be theirs exclusively. Essentially, the Jews were mad that what they saw as their inheritance was to be shared with the entire world. They failed to understand that they were not inheritors by the flesh, but inheritors by faith. This is the true meaning of being the "seed of Abraham". There was nothing special about Abraham's physical being, it was his faith that was credited to him as righteousness. The Jews completely missed the point, assuming that simply by being descended physically from Abraham they automatically inherited his righteousness. Christ disabused them of this notion and they killed him for it. As a result, ever since, a partial hardening as come upon the Jews which will not be lifted until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in".

Thus, salvation came "from the Jews" because they were the vehicle through which God chose to reveal the Messiah to the world. Read Romans chapters 9 through 11, it deals entirely with this topic.

That is some serious reverse-engineering you did there, Scorpion. Really?
Who were these prophets that were persecuted and killed by the Jews.
It has been a while but I don't remember that part of the OT.
I recommend inquisitive minds read Zealot by Reza Aslan to have a better historical understanding of who Jesus really was. Hint: Not a Prophet or the son of God, in fact Jesus claimed to be "the son of Man."

The Jews weren't interested in a Messiah. They wanted a revolutionary zealot that would free them from bondage under Roman occupation. Once Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is do unto Ceasar" and upset the Pharisees with his actions at the temple, he sealed his own fate.
The Jews wanted a revolutionary which is why they chose life for Barrabas and death for Jesus.
Please don't tell me that that was all God's plan and that he planned on sacrificing his own son.
That is just as ridiculous as Him commanding Abraham to kill Jacob. I can't believe in a God who would kill his own son or command another to do the same. We call those people cucks around here.

[scorpion]

(09-23-2016 09:26 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

That is some serious reverse-engineering you did there, Scorpion. Really?
Who were these prophets that were persecuted and killed by the Jews.
It has been a while but I don't remember that part of the OT.

From the mouth of Stephen:
Acts 7:51-52 - You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered.

From the mouth of Jesus Christ:
Luke 13:34-35 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

From the mouth of Jesus Christ again:
Luke 11:47-48 - Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

From the mouth of Paul:
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 - For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

A parable from Jesus detailing the Jews' treatment of the prophets they had been sent:
Matthew 21:33-46

33 “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. 34 When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants[a] to the tenants to get his fruit. 35 And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. 46 And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.

(09-23-2016 09:26 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

I recommend inquisitive minds read Zealot by Reza Aslan to have a better historical understanding of who Jesus really was. Hint: Not a Prophet or the son of God, in fact Jesus claimed to be "the son of Man."

A nonsensical argument. Jesus was both Son of Man and Son of God. If someone calls you by your last name, it doesn't mean you don't have a first name. The title of Son of Man also has significance going back to the Old Testament:

Daniel 7:13 - I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

The Jews understood the significance of the title Son of Man, and knew it went along with the title Son of God, hence Jesus referencing the above passage from Daniel as evidence of his deity, and the Pharisee ripping his garment in response to what he perceived as blasphemy:

Matthew 26:59-68 - Now the chief priests and the whole council[h] were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62 And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”[i] 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

(09-23-2016 09:26 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

The Jews weren't interested in a Messiah. They wanted a revolutionary zealot that would free them from bondage under Roman occupation. Once Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is do unto Ceasar" and upset the Pharisees with his actions at the temple, he sealed his own fate.
The Jews wanted a revolutionary which is why they chose life for Barrabas and death for Jesus.
Please don't tell me that that was all God's plan and that he planned on sacrificing his own son.
That is just as ridiculous as Him commanding Abraham to kill Jacob. I can't believe in a God who would kill his own son or command another to do the same. We call those people cucks around here.

True. They wanted a revolutionary King. But they were selfish and shortsighted. They wanted a King to save them from the Romans, they didn't understand that they were getting something much greater: a King to save them from death itself. They didn't think big enough in their conception of God and his power.

And yes, that was God's plan. The death of Christ on the cross was the centerpiece of human history which everything else revolves around. It was, in a very real sense, the entire reason anything exists at all. Everything before led up to it, and everything since has been a consequence of it. The sacrificial death of the Son of God in payment of the sins of mankind was the means by which God chose to demonstrate all of his perfect and glorious attributes at once - Mercy, Justice, Love, Wrath, Grace, Power, Glory. The divine essence married to the flesh of a man, dying a substitutionary death on behalf of man, his creation, in order to satisfy the justice of God, which cannot abide nor excuse sin without payment. The blood sacrifices of the Old Testament pointed out the necessity of blood to atone for sin, the clear meaning being, "the wages of sin is death". With the cross, Christ defeated death on our behalf, paying the sin debt in full.

God's command to Abraham to kill Jacob was foreshadowing of Christ, and a demonstration of the depth of Abraham's faith. God had previously promised Abraham descendants through Jacob, a promise Abraham believed. Thus, by subsequently ordering Abraham to kill Jacob, an act Abraham was prepared to carry out, the clear implication is that Abraham had such faith that he believed God would raise Jacob from the dead in order to fulfill his promise. This is, of course, exactly what God later did with Jesus - raised his own son from the dead, in order that we might become his adopted sons through faith.

[ElFlaco]

I always feel a bit sorry for Mormons when people make fun of their odder beliefs and rituals (magic underwear, their cosmology, Mormon men get their own planet, etc.). Mainstream Christian beliefs only seem more plausable because of familiarity.

I grew up in a place without Mormons and didn't meet any till after college. They're basically decent, but naive, people. I'm impressed in a way by Mormons with professional aspirations who take off two of their prime years to do their mission. Or maybe that just reflects how deep a hold their religious community has on their lives.

There's a whole YouTube genre of videos by ex-Mormons. That religion really does a number on you if you leave or don't buy the whole package.

[Iso]

(09-23-2016 11:46 AM)ElFlaco Wrote:  

I always feel a bit sorry for Mormons when people make fun of their odder beliefs and rituals (magic underwear, their cosmology, Mormon men get their own planet, etc.). Mainstream Christian beliefs only seem more plausable because of familiarity.

I don't see how magic underwear is a crazier belief than some of the Christian beliefs like the fact that Zombies rose from the graves and roamed through the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died.

[Kid Twist]

^ Scorpion, someone who uses a deceiver like Aslan to "reinforce" points that aren't there, doesn't want to be apprised of the reality of the story, the accounts of the gospel in this case, or the orthodox teachings. I say deceiver because he is a mouthpiece for the restorationist religions (including his own ethnic one, Islam) that are so wrong and so ignorant of the facts, they can only rely on "No, you are doing it the wrong way, what we say now takes precedence". But the reality is even worse, because they clearly aren't in line with what the original teachings ever were. That's why they lie and deceive ad infinitum; it is the only way to keep their falsehoods going.

The gospel (evangelion, good message, really the message of the victory of the king over the enemy) accounts are about a man who is without sin, had power over nature, resurrected others, and even rose from the dead ... yet somehow this man is supposed to be, by an outside detractor, just some guy who said he was a generic "Son of Man". It's just stupid, such bullshit beyond compare that I can't even believe anyone espousing that clear lie can even look himself in the mirror. What's more, that's not all: He calls himself I AM (You know Mage, the tetragrammaton, GOD's very name) and not just in the John passage of "Before Abraham was, I AM" he in fact says it each time the English translates it that "I am he" (ego eimi, short for ego eimi o wn, the tetragrammaton from the Septuagint) he is saying he's God. Beyond that, the jews wanted to kill him for "making himself God".

I can understand that people don't want to believe because this is an obvious reality of our world. What I cannot stand for or tolerate is clear lying in any debate about reality.

[Mage]

(09-22-2016 03:15 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Which is why I always find it strange when athletes or anyone in competition with others, pray to God for success or thank him for victory. It would be one thing if one prayed for God to give him the inner strength to acheive victory but just straight out asking for victory, isnt that cheating?

When Joe Louis World Heavyweight Champion read a speech written for him during WW2, he ended by saying: "We will win because we are on God's side."
After the speech people told him, "Great job Joe but you flubbed the end. You were supposed to say 'God is on our side.'" He insisted he had phrased it correctly and I would agree.

You have got it right.
Smart Theists pray like you did write, but smart Theists are very few.
If more theists would approach God correctly there would be less atheists.
Current religions all cater to stupid masses - they try to catch people trough emotions therefore smart people generally end up as atheists.

Theists must understand that faith is not about changing God's disposition, but about changing ourselves to be in harmony with God/Nature.

[Mage]

(09-23-2016 09:06 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 02:32 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Christians drive themselves in corner with this "total omnipotency" of God.

If God were omnipotent he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son to defeat death (his own creation) - he would just will it - and death would be defeated.

Mage, you are a smart guy, so stop being lazy with things like that.

The mystery of suffering and going to voluntary death is the most profound, amazing part of christianity that differentiates it from all other faiths that make particular claims about God. This is too long to get into here, but suffice to say that you go back the arguments that are ignorant (willing in this case because you know what the answer is) of the fact that free will necessitates strife, struggling and suffering in a created world. We are that created world, so God has to participate in it, and show us the true way to live. This was the only possibility and eventuality with such a God that loves freedom and our free will to choose to be with what is good.

"Willing it" (that is, the perfect state for us without accountability, so to speak) is this childish desire of atheist types that don't want order, a father, or anyone they have to be obedient to (authority). Something that they omit is that with that scenario, we wouldn't have consciousness or even the ability to have this profound conversation, because we would be innocent, childlike automatons for God.

Please stop being lazy, be inquisitive and use your talents, they are there.

You are confusing two things here:
1)Why God gave us free will do choose between good and evil and didn't create us as sinless robots - that is what you are talking about.
2)Why God had to resort to covert trickery to circumvent the law he has pointlessly created himself - that "wages of sin is death". That's what I am talking about.

I absolutely agree with you on the free will theology, but I was talking about something else.

[Mage]

(09-22-2016 10:35 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 08:58 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Why In Matthew 15:21–28, when Jesus encounters a Canaanite woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” ?

Also Jesus tells the Samaratin woman In John 1: 22 "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

This clearly contradicts what he is alleged to have said in your quotes from the same book of John. In fact Jesus preached exclusively to Jews and claimed only to be sent to them, not to any other peoples and certainly not the yet undiscovered world.

He doesn't say Salvation is through him or God but from the Jews.

How do you reconcile these two juxtaposed and clearly conflicting statements?

Jesus was fulfilling his purpose as the Messiah of Israel, which at that point meant his ministry was limited to the Jews. This was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jews spent hundreds of years killing and persecuting the prophets God sent, and then they killed their Messiah (Jesus) when he finally arrived. Because of the Jews' unbelief, the Gentiles were "grafted in" to the nation of Israel, so that "Israel" was not limited only to the Jewish people, but included people from the entire world. A nation not of the flesh, but of the spirit. This was the plan from the beginning, but the Jews were too prideful and arrogant to accept that the Messiah would not be theirs exclusively. Essentially, the Jews were mad that what they saw as their inheritance was to be shared with the entire world. They failed to understand that they were not inheritors by the flesh, but inheritors by faith. This is the true meaning of being the "seed of Abraham". There was nothing special about Abraham's physical being, it was his faith that was credited to him as righteousness. The Jews completely missed the point, assuming that simply by being descended physically from Abraham they automatically inherited his righteousness. Christ disabused them of this notion and they killed him for it. As a result, ever since, a partial hardening as come upon the Jews which will not be lifted until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in".

Thus, salvation came "from the Jews" because they were the vehicle through which God chose to reveal the Messiah to the world. Read Romans chapters 9 through 11, it deals entirely with this topic.

So scorpion - you are basically saying God only cares about salvation of Goyim because Jews sinned and were not good enough.

That's some fucked up way to perceive a God and call him loving and just.

[Mage]

(09-22-2016 07:27 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It sounds as if you've made your choice, Mage. Your heart is hardened. But who knows, maybe you will have a change of heart. A man named Paul certainly did. You are not too far gone to return, even as an avowed anti-Christ. His grace is sufficient. I will pray for you.

I will just leave these verses here:

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

1 John 2:22-23 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 10:9-10 - If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Why can't Christians see trough the tautology - If a person would become a believer of a certain religion trough quotes from the holy book of this religion, this means he already recognizes the authority of this book which means he should already be a believer of that religion.

Bible quote bashing is useless and a sure way to say you have lost the argument and have nothing to say.

This is another form of idolatry Christians engage into - they believe authority of Bible is greater then authority of God or Jesus so Bible can be used to prove God's existence or divinity of Jesus.

The correct way to find a common ground with a person of another belief is first to know if you both believe in God. Then you can argue over whether this God had an incarnation and whether a particular book is true or not and to what extent.

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-23-2016 03:43 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^ Scorpion, someone who uses a deceiver like Aslan to "reinforce" points that aren't there, doesn't want to be apprised of the reality of the story, the accounts of the gospel in this case, or the orthodox teachings. I say deceiver because he is a mouthpiece for the restorationist religions (including his own ethnic one, Islam) that are so wrong and so ignorant of the facts, they can only rely on "No, you are doing it the wrong way, what we say now takes precedence". But the reality is even worse, because they clearly aren't in line with what the original teachings ever were. That's why they lie and deceive ad infinitum; it is the only way to keep their falsehoods going.

The gospel (evangelion, good message, really the message of the victory of the king over the enemy) accounts are about a man who is without sin, had power over nature, resurrected others, and even rose from the dead ... yet somehow this man is supposed to be, by an outside detractor, just some guy who said he was a generic "Son of Man". It's just stupid, such bullshit beyond compare that I can't even believe anyone espousing that clear lie can even look himself in the mirror. What's more, that's not all: He calls himself I AM (You know Mage, the tetragrammaton, GOD's very name) and not just in the John passage of "Before Abraham was, I AM" he in fact says it each time the English translates it that "I am he" (ego eimi, short for ego eimi o wn, the tetragrammaton from the Septuagint) he is saying he's God. Beyond that, the jews wanted to kill him for "making himself God".

I can understand that people don't want to believe because this is an obvious reality of our world. What I cannot stand for or tolerate is clear lying in any debate about reality.

Reza Aslan is a Christian.

[Frost]

Scorpion, are you saying you actually believe in a ... MAGIC SKY FAIRY? lol

Just kidding. Of course you know, I have tremendous respect for the Christian faith, and for you specifically as someone who can defend it with intelligence and passion. I appreciate your responses here, and I'll be featuring them on my blog.

You also know that I have been reading and thinking and praying on the truth of Christianity for several years now. It hasn't consumed my life or anything (although given the stakes, it probably should) but it's always there in the background. Now that I have some free time to return to writing Thumotic, it strikes me as the most interesting and important question to address. So, I hope you'll take my writings about Christianity as the honest, respectful, good-faith inquiries I intend them to be.

So:

Christianity leads to good men and great civilizations: agreed.

Specific aspects of Christianity might seem weird or immoral to us, and that doesn't matter an iota if it's the Truth: agreed.

Casual rebellious atheism is a silly, empty, sad, and logically indefensible position: agreed.

Since the above common ground covers the majority of what you've written, let's drill down into some more productive topics.

I don't think there's a conclusive historical or logical case for Christianity. In fact, such a case would contradict Christian teachings on the importance of faith; no one needs to have faith that 2+2 = 4. If Christianity were simply a beautiful and useful religion, that might also have the benefit of being the Truth, I would be happy to believe and cultivate faith and recommend others in our tribe do the same. But, I see a significant and plausible downside.

The parable of the Canaanite Woman is interesting to me, and something we'll explore further. Briefly: If I were designing a religion for the purpose of keeping a servant class docile, my strategy would be to incorporate a narrative of earthly suffering and heavenly rewards for the slaves, and a parallel narrative of earthly prosperity and heavenly punishment for the ruling class. This is not a new idea, but it's not one that gets a lot of airtime in 2016.

In either case, I think the best use of my time right now is to write about these questions, and encourage smart people like yourself to make your case for one or the other interpretation. I truly do not know where this will all land, so either I save myself and the world from Christianity, or I save myself and the world with Christianity.

[Wutang]

(09-24-2016 08:12 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:43 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^ Scorpion, someone who uses a deceiver like Aslan to "reinforce" points that aren't there, doesn't want to be apprised of the reality of the story, the accounts of the gospel in this case, or the orthodox teachings. I say deceiver because he is a mouthpiece for the restorationist religions (including his own ethnic one, Islam) that are so wrong and so ignorant of the facts, they can only rely on "No, you are doing it the wrong way, what we say now takes precedence". But the reality is even worse, because they clearly aren't in line with what the original teachings ever were. That's why they lie and deceive ad infinitum; it is the only way to keep their falsehoods going.

The gospel (evangelion, good message, really the message of the victory of the king over the enemy) accounts are about a man who is without sin, had power over nature, resurrected others, and even rose from the dead ... yet somehow this man is supposed to be, by an outside detractor, just some guy who said he was a generic "Son of Man". It's just stupid, such bullshit beyond compare that I can't even believe anyone espousing that clear lie can even look himself in the mirror. What's more, that's not all: He calls himself I AM (You know Mage, the tetragrammaton, GOD's very name) and not just in the John passage of "Before Abraham was, I AM" he in fact says it each time the English translates it that "I am he" (ego eimi, short for ego eimi o wn, the tetragrammaton from the Septuagint) he is saying he's God. Beyond that, the jews wanted to kill him for "making himself God".

I can understand that people don't want to believe because this is an obvious reality of our world. What I cannot stand for or tolerate is clear lying in any debate about reality.

Reza Aslan is a Christian.

He was an evangelical earlier in his life but by the time his name started getting more attention he had become a Sufi Muslim.

[AboveAverageJoe]

I have respect for Sufism. Most Sunni sects don'e consider Sufi's real Muslim's. In fact Sunni's have historically killed Sufis as heretics.
I didn't know he had reverted to Islam.
To me all the Abrahamic religions are just a bunch of fairy tales told to keep people compliant. I don't see why red-pillars aren't following the ancient relegions of Rome or Greece, they have been around longer and they both created great civilizations that Christianity just built opun. In fact Christianity was grafted onto already existing Rome.

Another thing with divine intervention is this. God intervenes in human affairs insessantly in the OT and obvious intervenes in the NT by giving Jesus magical powers and the gift of practicing miracles, include causing him to be ressurected.

Why does God no longer interfere in human affairs in a visible, tangible, and actuall vocal way, anymore?

Are we not good enough, anymore?
Has God gotten a new pet that he cares about more?

The sickness that humans have as a species is as being a smart, naked thinking ape with opposable thumbs, it makes us feel we are something special and separate from nature. We are just like any other animal but we have such a specie-centric view of the universe that causes us to believe that something had to create us.
We are just too damn special of a snowflake!
It is the disease of the highest primate to need to believe in something larger than ourselves.
This belief was ingrained in us as a species because for 99% of our existence on this Earth life was, as Thomas Hobbes would say, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. This situation caused early humans to develop superstitions and a form of ODC. If we did something once and something good happened we repeated in hopes of a positive result, if we did something bad we refrained from doing it to avoid a negative result. We didn't have the intellect yet developed to distinguish causation and correlation. Shit some humans still don't. It is ingrained in our DNA. Our brains think by seeing patterns and exploiting them.

These sets of superstitions-of do's and don'ts were eventually codified into rituals and basic religions which worshipped the basic elements and many other important functions in life. They eventually became Gods of Sun and Moon, war, of fertitlity, of crops and farming, of love, of death, of the sea, gods of different tradesmen, etc.

Humans couldn't help to personify and anthropomorphize images of men and women that ruled over them whimsically in unseen astral planes. Many still can't as the prevalence of modern religion show. Religion also lends itslef to two more of our natural instincts: to form social groups and to appoint leaders over ourselves.

As a modern primate after the advent of modern science it is pretty absurd to hold on to these outdated notions of mystical being(s) controlling our lives. Take responsibility and control your own life and bow to no one.

[debeguiled]

A lot of good arguments in this thread. I was going to post this in one of the book threads, though I think it fits here better.

I just finished rereading a book by J.B. Phillips called, "The Ring of Truth." He was an clergyman in the U.K. who ended up translating the bible into modern English. This is his backstory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bertram_Phillips

Quote:

During World War II, while a minister at Church of the Good Shepherd in Lee, London, he found the young people in his church did not understand the Authorised Version of the Bible. He used the time in the bomb shelters during the London Blitz, to begin a translation of the New Testament into modern English, starting with the Epistle to the Colossians. The results appealed to the young people who found it easier to understand.

The subtitle of "The Ring of Truth" is "A Translator's Testimony," and in the book he makes a brief argument for the New Testament having a "ring of truth" that he has never experienced reading other books.

I was thinking it would be appropriate for this thread because approaching the NT in this way opens up the self to perceiving in a deeper way than just the academically rational.

Here are some quotes from the book:

Quote:

The New Testament, given a fair hearing, does not need me or anyone else to defend it. It has the proper ring for anyone who has not lost his ear for the truth.

Quote:

It is not magical, nor is it faultless: human beings wrote it. But by something I would not hesitate to describe as a miracle there is a concentration upon that area of inner truth which is fundamental and ageless.

Quote:

[O]nce one gets to grips with the actual stuff of the New Testament its vitality is astonishing. I found myself provoked, challenged, comforted, and generally convicted of my previous shallow knowledge of the Holy Scripture.

Quote:

Although I did my utmost to preserve an emotional detachment, I found again and again that the material under my hands was strangely alive; it spoke to my condition in the most uncanny way. I say "uncanny" for want of a better word, but it was a very strange experience to sense, not occasionally, but almost continually, the living quality of those rather strangely assorted books.

Of course all of this can be, if one is so inclined, written off as confirmation bias pure and simple, and then there is nothing more to say. If however, any man were to read the NT with an open heart and open mind, even if you are just doing it as a thought experiment, and at least pretend that it is a communication from God, there might be something valuable in the effort.

And on the other hand, just scanning as you read for contradictions and flaws is pointless, and is about as intellectually rigorous as the credulous Christians who read every line in thoughtless affirmation.

Does it have the ring of truth? Does it seem to be speaking to you directly? To your circumstances? To your own thoughts? Does it offer a better and deeper view of the world and human nature?

This is a different way to read a book, although one that is appropriate for a book of spiritual wisdom.

[MMX2010]

(09-22-2016 09:34 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

I got kicked out of Sunday school as an 8 year old for asking too many logical questions and flustering the teacher. Never looked back.

Let's divide people who study religion into theologians (people who go to accredited religious colleges), religious psychologists and sociologists (like Jonathan Haidt, who have degrees in a either a social science or psychology AND are paid to do academic research on religion), and neither of these (normal dudes who study religion personally, without academic rigor nor religious training, like Scorpion, me, and probably everyone else).

I choose to exclude the testimony of both the theologians and the normal dudes, elevating the scientific conclusions and non-scientific speculations of the religious psychologists. Many people find this technique objectionable, which I understand. But I won't change my mind. And I'm glad I reveal this up front; you should, too.

Religious psychologists agree, both scientifically and speculatively, that the purpose of religion is to create a highly bonded community. This is a bedrock agreement that cannot be dissuaded by considerations of whether God is real OR whether specific Biblical stories have literally happened. Read again: CANNOT be dissuaded by... Many people, particularly normal dude atheists, find this annoying.

Many religious psychologists, (but not all, since some object vigorously), have speculated (but NOT scientifically proven, nor supported) that believing in non-reality is MORE effective than believing in reality. In other words, a religion that contains obvious bullshit elements (literally, elements that are scientifically and/or logically proven to be bullshit) is MORE effective at creating a highly bonded community than any religion which contains no bullshit at all.

It goes like this. Everyone, especially as a child, encounters obvious religious bullshit. This invites every child to question the obvious religious bullshit. If this questioning is done respectfully, with more of a focus on putting emotional bonding first, this questioning is acceptable. And the child is kept within the religious community, with either little or much punishment. But if this question is done disrespectfully, with either snark or too much "fierceness" of inquiry, with less of a focus on putting emotional bonding first, this questioning is unacceptable. And the child is either booted out of the religious community or self-deports as an adult, leaving behind a more highly bonded religious community.

The logic is simple (if even Very Fucking Annoying): a religion which only contains non-bullshit elements CANNOT administer this subtle test, and therefore cannot know how committed its believers are. Whereas ANY religion with ANY form of bullshit can always know that everyone in the church has put the emotional well-being of the church above himself.

My experience is that religious people can respectfully consider this proposition and either love it, hate it, or dismiss it, without hating on me. Whereas a much smaller percentage of atheists can do so; they always try to steer the conversation back to whether Good exists, or to assertion that objective truth is more important than community bonding.

-----

Edited to add, if you read the entire thread, you can see my post's thesis working in real time.

The majority of us have accepted religious bullshit with an eye for social bonding. These are Scorpion, debeguiled, Kid Twist, myself, and some others. (To be fair, Scorpion would say his perspective IS NOT religious bullshit, and he would support this argument with far more religious knowledge than I possess.)

Meanwhile, there are two posters who simply cannot accept religious bullshit. These are Mage and AboveAverageJoe.

Without getting into a deep theological discussion of whether all religious beliefs are true, ask yourself where we would sit if we were discussing religion in a bar. Obviously, Mage and AboveAverageJoe would be sitting next to each other, challenging our religious beliefs.

Now ask yourself, if a non-English speaker witnessed our behavior, what would he see? He would see that Mage and AboveAverageJoe are upset at us for some reason, but that we accept their upset mood - without being upset ourselves. They would also see that Scorpion is our de facto leader, and that we more or less agree with him.

In Trumpian terms, Mage and AboveAverageJoe have built an emotional wall, and they have gotten themselves to pay for it.

[Sooth]

(09-24-2016 09:59 AM)Frost Wrote:  

I don't think there's a conclusive historical or logical case for Christianity. In fact, such a case would contradict Christian teachings on the importance of faith; no one needs to have faith that 2+2 = 4.

I see logic and mathematic truth as the strongest persuader towards Christianity.

Logic and math are universal, immaterial, transcendental, unchanging etc. The Christian God also has those characteristics, so these are easily explained as the nature of God Himself. Mathematics can be extremely beautiful as in Eulers Identity, and the perfect application to the real world in Physics is also staggering.

So when someone says there is no logical case for God, one must ask what is your case for logic?

[Kid Twist]

(09-24-2016 08:12 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

(09-23-2016 03:43 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

^ Scorpion, someone who uses a deceiver like Aslan to "reinforce" points that aren't there, doesn't want to be apprised of the reality of the story, the accounts of the gospel in this case, or the orthodox teachings. I say deceiver because he is a mouthpiece for the restorationist religions (including his own ethnic one, Islam) that are so wrong and so ignorant of the facts, they can only rely on "No, you are doing it the wrong way, what we say now takes precedence". But the reality is even worse, because they clearly aren't in line with what the original teachings ever were. That's why they lie and deceive ad infinitum; it is the only way to keep their falsehoods going.

The gospel (evangelion, good message, really the message of the victory of the king over the enemy) accounts are about a man who is without sin, had power over nature, resurrected others, and even rose from the dead ... yet somehow this man is supposed to be, by an outside detractor, just some guy who said he was a generic "Son of Man". It's just stupid, such bullshit beyond compare that I can't even believe anyone espousing that clear lie can even look himself in the mirror. What's more, that's not all: He calls himself I AM (You know Mage, the tetragrammaton, GOD's very name) and not just in the John passage of "Before Abraham was, I AM" he in fact says it each time the English translates it that "I am he" (ego eimi, short for ego eimi o wn, the tetragrammaton from the Septuagint) he is saying he's God. Beyond that, the jews wanted to kill him for "making himself God".

I can understand that people don't want to believe because this is an obvious reality of our world. What I cannot stand for or tolerate is clear lying in any debate about reality.

Reza Aslan is a Christian.

Uhh, no he is not.