Whats Next?/What is this country coming to? (merged)

#201
#201
utvolpj said:
that's great and all but it comes from the idea that God created morality, fairness, etc in humans. Some believe it's already there and the authors of the bible just put it on paper and claimed it as an original idea
Click to expand...

True that...it's hard to believe the Jews made it all the way to Mt. Sinai without knowing murder, theft, and lying were wrong.
 
#203
#203
rjd970 said:
True that...it's hard to believe the Jews made it all the way to Mt. Sinai without knowing murder, theft, and lying were wrong.
Click to expand...

I think thats why it took them 40 years to get there, the generation that began didn't all finish. They seemed to be alittle hardheaded.
 
#204
#204
rjd970 said:
I'm of the opinion that man made churches hijacked his message, inserted miracles that appeal to followers of other religions, and then framed the story to consolidate a power base and keep the masses in check. I don't see how one can look at the history of christianity and churches and not come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...

So I wasted my time the other night when I posted all of these detailed facts to confirm the first hand witness accounts of His life, at least as far as you're concerned? :hmm:

Oh well, I tried. Maybe someone else can benefit from my effort... :dunno:
 
#205
#205
#209
#209
rjd970 said:
Personally, when I read the Bible (specifically the NT) I read it through a prism similar to this. I focus on the message and disregard the miracles and God claims. Jesus had much to say about social justice that still applies today.

I'm of the opinion that (1) man made churches hijacked his message, (2) inserted miracles that appeal to followers of other religions, and (3) then framed the story to consolidate a power base and keep the masses in check. (4) I don't see how one can look at the history of christianity and churches and not come to this conclusion.

(5) I say focus on Jesus's message, forget the religious mumbo jumbo. That's just me though.
Click to expand...

RJD,

Just a few thoughts on your comments above...

(1) Jesus' teachings were that a church consisted "of people" as opposed to religious buildings or temples, which he rarely spent time in. However, I agree with you that some religions misrepresent His message.

(2) If anything, Jesus' miracles threatened other religions... they definitely didn't appeal to them. Jesus performed some miracles on the Sabbath, which greatly upset the Pharisees.

(3) Not sure what your thought process is with this statement. During His time I don't think anyone would be of the opinion that Jesus had a power base, and as far as keeping the masses in check... well, I guess I'm not sure what you're referring to.

(4) Please don't confuse the history of Christianity with the history of churches... these are two VERY different things.

(5) If you stay focused on Jesus' message, then I think you will also have a relationship with him some day. I'm glad you read the Bible... I think you would also find it interesting to study it's history, and not just the teachings, at some point.
 
#210
#210
#211
#211
IBlvNTmWrk said:
RJD,

Just a few thoughts on your comments above...

(1) Jesus' teachings were that a church consisted "of people" as opposed to religious buildings or temples, which he rarely spent time in. However, I agree with you that some religions misrepresent His message.

(2) If anything, Jesus' miracles threatened other religions... they definitely didn't appeal to them. Jesus performed some miracles on the Sabbath, which greatly upset the Pharisees.

(3) Not sure what your thought process is with this statement. During His time I don't think anyone would be of the opinion that Jesus had a power base, and as far as keeping the masses in check... well, I guess I'm not sure what you're referring to.

(4) Please don't confuse the history of Christianity with the history of churches... these are two VERY different things.

(5) If you stay focused on Jesus' message, then I think you will also have a relationship with him some day. I'm glad you read the Bible... I think you would also find it interesting to study it's history, and not just the teachings, at some point.
Click to expand...

1. I'm referring to the substance of what he said about compassion and social constitutionality. Set aside from religion and church it is still very compelling.

2. With other miracles, I am referring to this:

*Ø*  Wilson's Almanac free daily ezine | Similarities: Jesus Attis Zoroaster Buddha Krishna Mithras Dionysos Horus Tammuz Lao-Tze Heracles

All the similarities are too much to be coincident. And I am sure it did a lot to open doors of the Roman pagans to get them on board with Christianity.

3. By establishing a power base, I mean the 1000 years that followed his death, not the time he was alive.

4. If you believe the miracle and divinity stuff, I don't see too much difference here.

5. I put Jesus in the same category as someone like Bhudda, or MLK. His message is powerful and relevant. I see no reason to place divinity with him.
 
#213
#213
rjd970 said:
1. I'm referring to the substance of what he said about compassion and social constitutionality. Set aside from religion and church it is still very compelling.

2. With other miracles, I am referring to this:

*Ø** Wilson's Almanac free daily ezine | Similarities: Jesus Attis Zoroaster Buddha Krishna Mithras Dionysos Horus Tammuz Lao-Tze Heracles

All the similarities are too much to be coincident. And I am sure it did a lot to open doors of the Roman pagans to get them on board with Christianity.

3. By establishing a power base, I mean the 1000 years that followed his death, not the time he was alive.

4. If you believe the miracle and divinity stuff, I don't see too much difference here.

5. I put Jesus in the same category as someone like Bhudda, or MLK. His message is powerful and relevant. I see no reason to place divinity with him.
Click to expand...

I looked at Wilson's thing. I googled a couple of the names that were listed. All the ones that I looked at were gods to be worshiped, made in mens minds and hands. Not real people. There is evidence of a real person known as Jesus Christ. If you take the old testament, everything about Jesus Christ was revealed. So yes, some of these "gods" could have characteristics of Jesus. Put together by others to strenthen their gods. People did know the Torah and remaining old testament scriptures.
 
Last edited:
#214
#214
rjd, it didn't let me add all I wanted to in my edit. I've been home sick today with a light case of something. All my kids at school have had this flu and I think I have a little touch of it. I'm going to bed now, going to try and go in tomorrow and 4:45 comes early in the morning. Maybe we can continue at some point.
 
#215
#215
rjd970 said:
2. With other miracles, I am referring to this:

*Ø** Wilson's Almanac free daily ezine | Similarities: Jesus Attis Zoroaster Buddha Krishna Mithras Dionysos Horus Tammuz Lao-Tze Heracles

All the similarities are too much to be coincident. And I am sure it did a lot to open doors of the Roman pagans to get them on board with Christianity.
Click to expand...

RJD,

It took a while, but I visited the website above and read most everything the author presented. I especially found interesting his own comments regarding his research...

"Author's cautionary note: Most ancient deities are known to us through more than one source; often these varied sources present different myths and legends, some of them contradictory and even mutually exclusive. These inconsistencies might be reflected in these tables, as might my own errors of fact or interpretation. Caution is advised. Much of the above is contentious among scholars, and I am not a scholar but a hobbyist."

He also provided a link to additional information on the website which I hope you also read. Here it is for your reference: Dionysus. Not an influence on Christianity

If you are looking for conspiracy theories you can find them everywhere - be it Jesus, JFK, or the moon landing. However, if you haven't done so I would also encourage you to read the manuscript evidence link that OV75 provided.

On a separate note - OV75, I hope you are feeling much better in the morning.
 
#216
#216
IBlvNTmWrk said:
The very day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God...

Fact:
There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. In the other states, the word "God", "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" or the most popular (in 30 states) "Almighty God" is used. To think that our constitution and government beliefs were not somehow based on religious principles is a losing argument, as the ONLY evidence being used to support it is that GOD is not listed in the constitution.
Click to expand...
see, the people that wrote this pile of laws we call the constitution were religious to varying degrees, so any of the extraneous things they wrote and participated in might have been all about religious matters, but they all went out of their way to ensure that our governing documents were devoid of their personal convictions, because it was the right thing to do.

I'm not suggesting that those men were atheists. I'm saying 100% for certain that they wanted our nation to accepting of atheists and that they wanted our law to be religion neutral.

Do you really believe, given the nature of their lives and from many of their writings, that these men would have excluded, altogether, any mentions of God had they wanted them in the constitution? Preambles and other meaningless statements don't have to live up to any scrutiny. GW asking people to give thanks to their God doesn't have to. The law, it had to live up to their ideal and it did.
 
#217
#217
This is the whole problem about getting into evidence pissing matches about what is and isn't right about what the Bible may or may not say and about who Jesus really was or wasn't.

We can point holes in what each of us bring to the table all day. You can find your "sources" and I can find my "sources". You are going to see what you want to see and I am going to see what I want to see. At the end of the day though, it comes down to what each of us thinks is more believable. From where I sit, an all powerful creator of the universe sending his son down to be born of a virgin, learn the carpenter's trade, preach socially radical attributes, to be morbidly sacrificed for the sake of all those who believe in him, and then to one day return to earth trailing clouds of glory and doom to reign over us....

...forget it. I just don't find it believable in the least. You and many others do and that's fine. If it gives your life meaning and purpose and provides a sense of comfort then I am happy for you. We read the same text and come away with profoundly different ideas about what it means. That is what this boils down to and what makes our country great.

But inferring that we as a country were founded on a single set of principles defined by the relatively narrow purview of Christianity is wrong.
 
#218
#218
BigPapaVol said:
see, the people that wrote this pile of laws we call the constitution were religious to varying degrees, so any of the extraneous things they wrote and participated in might have been all about religious matters, but they all went out of their way to ensure that our governing documents were devoid of their personal convictions, because it was the right thing to do.

I'm not suggesting that those men were atheists. I'm saying 100% for certain that they wanted our nation to accepting of atheists and that they wanted our law to be religion neutral.

Do you really believe, given the nature of their lives and from many of their writings, that these men would have excluded, altogether, any mentions of God had they wanted them in the constitution? Preambles and other meaningless statements don't have to live up to any scrutiny. GW asking people to give thanks to their God doesn't have to. The law, it had to live up to their ideal and it did.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:

Did you teach American History at the point?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top