It was suggest on the Film Thread that this might be a topic for discussion.
I am a Christian and fully believe in the life and death of Jesus Christ. People ask for proof of his life on this earth and learned people start at Genesis going onto the New Testament quoting various scriptures. Some making themselves multi millionaires with large ego's.
Having read a lot of this I have thought about the proof of Jesus Christ's life from a different angle. I am sure most are familiar with the Vatican which is my start. I am not a Catholic, but ask any Catholic who the first Pope was? St. Peter, as in St Peter's Basilica the present day Vatican.
St. Peter is the same Peter in the New Testament who wrote the Books 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The same Peter a disciple of Jesus whom Jesus said Mat 16.18 'Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church'.
This is my simple summary of proof why I believe in Jesus Christ without resorting to scriptures.
I would also add that I do not fly the flag of any Christian religion as in my opinion, all fall short of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe, or want or do not want to believe, is your choice and a purely personal one. As I have said several times on other posts I respect people opinions and hope they respect mine.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Pete I haven't the foggiest idea. Probably because they didn't believe in Jesus and remember that Jesus's time was within that of the Roman Empire around the Med and Europe.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Pete I haven't the foggiest idea. Probably because they didn't believe in Jesus and remember that Jesus's time was within that of the Roman Empire around the Med and Europe.
OK mate I respect your view but I have too many questions unanswered to believe.
Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner. 68 Years following the Town
I am a Christian and fully believe in the life and death of Jesus Christ. People ask for proof of his life on this earth and learned people start at Genesis going onto the New Testament quoting various scriptures. Some making themselves multi millionaires with large ego's.
St. Peter is the same Peter in the New Testament who wrote the Books 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The same Peter a disciple of Jesus whom Jesus said Mat 16.18 'Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church'.
This is my simple summary of proof why I believe in Jesus Christ without resorting to scriptures.
I would also add that I do not fly the flag of any Christian religion as in my opinion, all fall short of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe, or want or do not want to believe, is your choice and a purely personal one. As I have said several times on other posts I respect people opinions and hope they respect mine.
DB Ive been to the holy land as you may know from reading my discussion with KingstonMariner on the film thread. Since going my faith in Jesus as a holy man has been recharged. I was brought up Catholic but went by the wayside a bit .Since seeing all the sites in 2018 on a holy pilgrimage tour Ive come back a better person .Its like a film set of the tv programme time team. I saw a fair few archaeological digs. Incredibly moving as well is seeing relics of houses and temples from Jesus's time especially in Capernaum .Likewise seeing the wall which King Herold built on the mountainside which was around at the time of Jesus further brings the bible to life.
It was suggest on the Film Thread that this might be a topic for discussion.
I am a Christian and fully believe in the life and death of Jesus Christ. People ask for proof of his life on this earth and learned people start at Genesis going onto the New Testament quoting various scriptures. Some making themselves multi millionaires with large ego's.
Having read a lot of this I have thought about the proof of Jesus Christ's life from a different angle. I am sure most are familiar with the Vatican which is my start. I am not a Catholic, but ask any Catholic who the first Pope was? St. Peter, as in St Peter's Basilica the present day Vatican.
St. Peter is the same Peter in the New Testament who wrote the Books 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The same Peter a disciple of Jesus whom Jesus said Mat 16.18 'Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church'.
This is my simple summary of proof why I believe in Jesus Christ without resorting to scriptures.
I would also add that I do not fly the flag of any Christian religion as in my opinion, all fall short of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe, or want or do not want to believe, is your choice and a purely personal one. As I have said several times on other posts I respect people opinions and hope they respect mine.
I believe that there could have been a preacher in those times and he may have been called Jesus, however as I like to point out to Christians this man would have been a jew, as were all his disciples. At no point in the bible does he renounce his Jewish faith and neither do any of the disciples and the crown of thorns was to represent him as King of the Jews. The christian religion was not founded for a number of years after the supposed death of Jesus. So the christian faith is based on fictional accounts written hundreds of years, in some cases, later. So why base a new religion on the teachings of someone who was obviously quite happy himself to be of another religion, why not just become another branch of Judaism.
Oh and his mum obviously slept around and the man who raised him was a gullible idiot.
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
I would class myself as an Atheist but I’m always intrigued and open to listening to alternative views, but the problem for me with the Jesus story is that the story has been told many times before his arrival. Richard Dawkins covered this subject well in is excellent book the God delusion.
I believe that there could have been a preacher in those times and he may have been called Jesus, however as I like to point out to Christians this man would have been a jew, as were all his disciples. At no point in the bible does he renounce his Jewish faith and neither do any of the disciples and the crown of thorns was to represent him as King of the Jews. The christian religion was not founded for a number of years after the supposed death of Jesus. So the christian faith is based on fictional accounts written hundreds of years, in some cases, later. So why base a new religion on the teachings of someone who was obviously quite happy himself to be of another religion, why not just become another branch of Judaism.
Oh and his mum obviously slept around and the man who raised him was a gullible idiot.
I respect your views which are personal to you.
However you have done nothing to suggest that going back in time from St. Peter is wrong. Jesus was a Jew as per the mocking of him at his death 'King of the Jews', and the beliefs of Christianity could not start until after his death as in CHRISTianity.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I believe that there could have been a preacher in those times and he may have been called Jesus, however as I like to point out to Christians this man would have been a jew, as were all his disciples. At no point in the bible does he renounce his Jewish faith and neither do any of the disciples and the crown of thorns was to represent him as King of the Jews. The christian religion was not founded for a number of years after the supposed death of Jesus. So the christian faith is based on fictional accounts written hundreds of years, in some cases, later. So why base a new religion on the teachings of someone who was obviously quite happy himself to be of another religion, why not just become another branch of Judaism.
I think the answer to this is Jesus preached a radical form of Judaism which wasn't in keeping with main Jewish orthodox views of the time. Its what ultimately got him killed as he was attracting such a following that the Romans were scared of his new message.
I would class myself as an Atheist but I’m always intrigued and open to listening to alternative views, but the problem for me with the Jesus story is that the story has been told many times before his arrival. Richard Dawkins covered this subject well in is excellent book the God delusion.
I think there were story's going on before Jesus's time of which parts were amalgamated into the bible eg Noah's Arc and the flood .I think this what parts of the Quran represents as well. Fragments of Christian thinking which became part of the Islamic holy book.
Thing is the founder of Judaism Abraham was the first ancient man to propose a belief in one God at a time when ancient peoples believed in many Gods. This is what ultimately influenced later prophets eg Moses, John the Baptist and then Jesus.
Ive read the God delusion as well and wasn't entirely convinced with Dawkins arguments. Even he admits he hasn't got the answer to the universes' complexity and leaves some room aside for "something" which could of started everything off.
I would class myself as an Atheist but I’m always intrigued and open to listening to alternative views, but the problem for me with the Jesus story is that the story has been told many times before his arrival. Richard Dawkins covered this subject well in is excellent book the God delusion.
Dawkins is also famous for his evolution theory, and let us remember it is his words as a theory. Evolution is a fact of life going forward but he failed to state how the worlds were created. Lets go to the Big Bang theory of two worlds colliding, so far so good. So who created the first world and where did the second one come from.
Until their is some type of answer to these questions I am happy with the fact in Genesis 'God Created'. Incidentally you could also say two atoms collided to make the Big Bang and my question would still be the same, who created the first atom.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Dawkins is also famous for his evolution theory, and let us remember it is his words as a theory. Evolution is a fact of life going forward but he failed to state how the worlds were created. Lets go to the Big Bang theory of two worlds colliding, so far so good. So who created the first world and where did the second one come from.
Until their is some type of answer to these questions I am happy with the fact in Genesis 'God Created'. Incidentally you could also say two atoms collided to make the Big Bang and my question would still be the same, who created the first atom.
Likewise DB soon as science discovers something it opens up a pandoras box to something else. Its a never ending cycle for the holy grail. For me the divine will never be summed up by science .
There is a series on the history channel called ancient aliens which looks at the possibility that aliens not God seeded this planted.
Also looks at how men in those days could move a stone weighing over 100 ton lift it and lay it perfectly in a wall.
Something we can not do today without very heavy lifting vehicles and other equipment .
For me Pete I dont buy into the idea of aliens. Its all about the energy . I think the divine is somehow linked into this. Think of light over dark, good over bad ,love over hate. Jesus essentially preached the same thing and why he was often referred to as the light of the world.
There is no evidence that Jesus existed. The romans, if they were worried about the message he was preaching, certainly didn't think he was important enough to mention.
We only have the stories written years after his death by people who were followers of this new religion, and considering some of those stories said he could cure leprosy etc. with just a touch or that he fed 5000 people with 5 fish and 12 loaves of bread or some such nonsense, oh and the coming back from the dead thing. He is also considered a prophet in Islam, a religion which didn't rise until 700 years or so after his supposed death.
My point is that, in most circumstances, you would at least question something that had no basis in fact and that was only written about years after the alleged events and yet here we are a whole religion unquestioned.
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
Why would any god create the earth and all it’s living things and then send deadly viral illnesses, famines and natural disasters while allowing wars, genocides, sexual violence/crimes etc to happen?
Dawkins is also famous for his evolution theory, and let us remember it is his words as a theory. Evolution is a fact of life going forward but he failed to state how the worlds were created. Lets go to the Big Bang theory of two worlds colliding, so far so good. So who created the first world and where did the second one come from.
Until their is some type of answer to these questions I am happy with the fact in Genesis 'God Created'. Incidentally you could also say two atoms collided to make the Big Bang and my question would still be the same, who created the first atom.
Or go back further and ask where did God come from?
Religion is complete and utter bunkum and it staggers me that so many people believe. Never has something caused so many wars, deaths and subjugation of people in the entire history of mankind.
I'm with Penn Jillette in saying that I'm not even an atheist, as that suggests there is something to be opposed to and there isn't. He says:-
"Religion cannot and should not be replaced by atheism. Religion needs to go away and not be replaced by anything. Atheism is not a religion. It's the absence of religion, and that is a wonderful thing."
Dawkins is also famous for his evolution theory, and let us remember it is his words as a theory. Evolution is a fact of life going forward but he failed to state how the worlds were created. Lets go to the Big Bang theory of two worlds colliding, so far so good. So who created the first world and where did the second one come from.
Until their is some type of answer to these questions I am happy with the fact in Genesis 'God Created'. Incidentally you could also say two atoms collided to make the Big Bang and my question would still be the same, who created the first atom.
DB don’t confuse the scientific term ‘theory’ (ie a hypothesis with lots of evidence to support it as a good working explanation for the way things are or the way things work, but leaving just enough room for a better explanation that is supported by better evidence) with an opinion or a belief that has no proof. There is no equivalence between the theory of evolution and creationism. The latter is just a story. A myth if you like, that might hold a hidden meaning, but for which there is no proof.
The Big Bang theory isn’t about two worlds colliding either. It’s about all matter, space and time starting very very rapidly from a singularity (at which point I get lost). If you’re going to dismiss a theory, understand what it is first. The Big Bang Theory does, as I understand it, allow for a ‘god’ to have started it off. Although some cosmologists think that our Big Bang might not have been the first.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Fair point but why have not the middle eastern countries taken those names as well. ?
Pete, I thought you were joking at first! A lot of those ‘English’ names are Anglicised versions of Latin and Greek versions of Middle Eastern names.
Exception is Peter, which is I think Greek or Latin for stone/rock and was a nickname given by Jesus to his disciple Simon (modern Hebrew = Shimon). There was no Hebrew Peter.
They were adopted in Christian countries as people wanted to give their offspring holy names. When they ran out of New Testament names, they started using Old Testament names too like Daniel, Samuel, Deuteronomy and Leviticus (only kidding about the last two).
Joshua is our version (in the Anglo countries) of Jesus or Jesu in the Latin countries. Jesus being the Latinised version of an old Hebrew name - for some reason (probably to do with who translated what and when) we call the Old Testament profit Joshua but the New Testament guy Jesus.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
To elaborate on BAWB2’s point. The version of belief that we (in the Christian world) have accepted are just the versions that the Church chose to adopt out of them all.
The First Council of Nicea met in 325 because the (still unbaptised Roman Emperor Constantine) wanted one version of the various faiths and cults that had spread in the Empire (and beyond) around Jesus. They decided then on ‘our’ version which has Jesus as the son of god etc, and promptly went about persecuting all those who refused to follow this.
What we call Christianity* was a state sponsored religion, agreed upon 300 years after the events that it claimed happened, and was used to bring order to an empire. It was very successful in wiping out the other versions including their public memory (but were still referenced in documents).
* some of the memory of the other cults/religions are retained by Islam. Muslims believe that Jesus was a very good man but not a deity. They use the same formula as they do with Mohammed when mentioning his name. Mohammed PBUH Jesus, PBUH. i.e. Peace Be Upon Him
Doesn’t mean he existed though because Islam came 600 years AD.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Or go back further and ask where did God come from?
Religion is complete and utter bunkum and it staggers me that so many people believe. Never has something caused so many wars, deaths and subjugation of people in the entire history of mankind.
I'm with Penn Jillette in saying that I'm not even an atheist, as that suggests there is something to be opposed to and there isn't. He says:-
"Religion cannot and should not be replaced by atheism. Religion needs to go away and not be replaced by anything. Atheism is not a religion. It's the absence of religion, and that is a wonderful thing."
Atheism doesn’t replace anything it’s just a rejection of so called Gods. It’s only fair to criticise religion as it’s responsible for so much evil in the world past present and no doubt future.
There are times I wonder just maybe that there is something out there that will reveal and explain all when we die. So I live a win win life by rejecting all religious nonsense no praying or wasting time in church, then if I happen to be wrong then it’s a welcome bonus.
If you believe in the Nicene Creed, you basically believe in something that became dominant because of the equivalent of the Stalinist purges which ‘removed’ all the other versions of socialism in that empire.
Believe what you believe. But don’t claim historical evidence for it as there is none.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Why would any god create the earth and all it’s living things and then send deadly viral illnesses, famines and natural disasters while allowing wars, genocides, sexual violence/crimes etc to happen?
I believe that many of the things you mention are man made mainly by tyrants/dictators call them what you like wanting power/money and a selfish obsession. You also have to factor in the greed of people who create problems like climate change, know what the problem is and continue to ignore it for their own selfish greed ( destruction of Amazon rain forests etc.)The realignment of tectonic plates are a natural disaster for the people who suffer from their actions, but it could be argued that this is evolution or realignment of creation.
As I said before it's all a matter of our own personal choices what we believe.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
The First Council of Nicea met in 325 because the (still unbaptised Roman Emperor Constantine) wanted one version of the various faiths and cults that had spread in the Empire (and beyond) around Jesus. They decided then on ‘our’ version which has Jesus as the son of god etc, and promptly went about persecuting all those who refused to follow this.
What we call Christianity* was a state sponsored religion, agreed upon 300 years after the events that it claimed happened, and was used to bring order to an empire. It was very successful in wiping out the other versions including their public memory (but were still referenced in documents). .
I think it goes deeper than that Kingston. The essence of the Catholic church is they tried to preserve the pureness of Jesus's message as it was being watered down and argued upon like you have loosely pointed out above in the years after his death . Its why you get different strands now of Christianity eg Mormonism, protestants etc . Its a sort of deviation from Jesus's message. Its why vicars in the church of England can get married and have children where the Catholic clergy cant. You get other seriously devout members of the Catholic church as well who follow Jesus and the deeper message of trying to follow the divine. Think of Cistercian monks . Their day starts with getting up at 3.15 am to pray and at various points throughout the day alongside work which maintains their abbey.
Or go back further and ask where did God come from?
Religion is complete and utter bunkum and it staggers me that so many people believe. Never has something caused so many wars, deaths and subjugation of people in the entire history of mankind.
I'm with Penn Jillette in saying that I'm not even an atheist, as that suggests there is something to be opposed to and there isn't. He says:-
"Religion cannot and should not be replaced by atheism. Religion needs to go away and not be replaced by anything. Atheism is not a religion. It's the absence of religion, and that is a wonderful thing."
I absolutely agree with you. That is why I said I am a Christian and NOT a member of any religious group. Over the centuries various groups have hijacked Christianity for their own evil ends making out that whatever they do is in the name of God.
For example the C of E whinge about the poor whilst being one of the richest organisations in the country. Why don't Catholic priests from the Pope down marry? The first Pope, St Peter, had a wife. It is recorded in the book of Mark that Jesus healed Peter's mother in law.
I could go on and I am sure you also could quote many reasons about religion being bad. To me believing in the ways of Jesus Christ is totally different to bring religious.
I cannot answer where did God come from nor can you answer which came first the chicken or the egg. Unfortunately none of us know the answer to some questions so we just have leave them their.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
DB don’t confuse the scientific term ‘theory’ (ie a hypothesis with lots of evidence to support it as a good working explanation for the way things are or the way things work, but leaving just enough room for a better explanation that is supported by better evidence) with an opinion or a belief that has no proof. There is no equivalence between the theory of evolution and creationism. The latter is just a story. A myth if you like, that might hold a hidden meaning, but for which there is no proof.
The Big Bang theory isn’t about two worlds colliding either. It’s about all matter, space and time starting very very rapidly from a singularity (at which point I get lost). If you’re going to dismiss a theory, understand what it is first. The Big Bang Theory does, as I understand it, allow for a ‘god’ to have started it off. Although some cosmologists think that our Big Bang might not have been the first.
If they assume God started if off, how can Dawkins &co. say their is no God? If you go back to time immemorial some thing had to be created. Matter, atoms, gases call it what you like had to be created from something are by someone.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
To elaborate on BAWB2’s point. The version of belief that we (in the Christian world) have accepted are just the versions that the Church chose to adopt out of them all.
The First Council of Nicea met in 325 because the (still unbaptised Roman Emperor Constantine) wanted one version of the various faiths and cults that had spread in the Empire (and beyond) around Jesus. They decided then on ‘our’ version which has Jesus as the son of god etc, and promptly went about persecuting all those who refused to follow this.
What we call Christianity* was a state sponsored religion, agreed upon 300 years after the events that it claimed happened, and was used to bring order to an empire. It was very successful in wiping out the other versions including their public memory (but were still referenced in documents).
* some of the memory of the other cults/religions are retained by Islam. Muslims believe that Jesus was a very good man but not a deity. They use the same formula as they do with Mohammed when mentioning his name. Mohammed PBUH Jesus, PBUH. i.e. Peace Be Upon Him
Doesn’t mean he existed though because Islam came 600 years AD.
You are correct about the First Council of Nicea. It is at that point that religion also began misusing Christianity as it message.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Religion is complete and utter bunkum and it staggers me that so many people believe. Never has something caused so many wars, deaths and subjugation of people in the entire history of mankind. "
Saddened you think like that Ginny. Perhaps when your on your death bed and contemplating the great unknown you may change your tune.
Religion has done more good than bad though. Gives people a focus /community/role models/hope in a often evil word.
From a scientific view the closest thing to religion in my view is energy. Love. good, kindness etc etc. Its all examples of how humans if they choose can become more like that and make the world a better place.
Everyone has a choice but if we choose to try to live a good life we are becoming in tune more with that divine energy source which started it off and create a better society for all. Jesus, Guru Nanak and other religious leaders eg Abraham the patriarch of the three Abrahamic faiths loosely embodied this view as well .
If you believe in the Nicene Creed, you basically believe in something that became dominant because of the equivalent of the Stalinist purges which ‘removed’ all the other versions of socialism in that empire.
Believe what you believe. But don’t claim historical evidence for it as there is none.
I think this is a bit extreme comparing Jesus Christ to Stalin. There is evidence from an historian (off hand I cannot remember his name but I will let you know when I do) at the time of Jesus who confirmed the miracles of Jesus.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I believe that many of the things you mention are man made mainly by tyrants/dictators call them what you like wanting power/money and a selfish obsession. You also have to factor in the greed of people who create problems like climate change, know what the problem is and continue to ignore it for their own selfish greed ( destruction of Amazon rain forests etc.)The realignment of tectonic plates are a natural disaster for the people who suffer from their actions, but it could be argued that this is evolution or realignment of creation.
As I said before it's all a matter of our own personal choices what we believe.
I believe that many of the things you mention are man made mainly by tyrants/dictators call them what you like wanting power/money and a selfish obsession. You also have to factor in the greed of people who create problems like climate change, know what the problem is and continue to ignore it for their own selfish greed ( destruction of Amazon rain forests etc.)The realignment of tectonic plates are a natural disaster for the people who suffer from their actions, but it could be argued that this is evolution or realignment of creation.
As I said before it's all a matter of our own personal choices what we believe.
No, it could not.
Why ?
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I believe that many of the things you mention are man made mainly by tyrants/dictators call them what you like wanting power/money and a selfish obsession. You also have to factor in the greed of people who create problems like climate change, know what the problem is and continue to ignore it for their own selfish greed ( destruction of Amazon rain forests etc.)The realignment of tectonic plates are a natural disaster for the people who suffer from their actions, but it could be argued that this is evolution or realignment of creation.
As I said before it's all a matter of our own personal choices what we believe.
If there is a being or power capable of creating a planet with intelligent life - itself capable of travelling to and photographing other planets - I would say they’re probably capable of engineering out design flaws such as dictators, tyrants and natural disasters.
If there is a being or power capable of creating a planet with intelligent life - itself capable of travelling to and photographing other planets - I would say they’re probably capable of engineering out design flaws such as dictators and tyrants and natural disasters.
I see where you are coming from but none of this is in the teachings of Jesus Christ, who I believe could have done this if he wanted to. That said if all flaws of human nature were designed out then we would all be the same, likewise of natural events. No heatwaves, no cold spells, no summers no winters etc.
All I've said is that I believe that Jesus Christ walked this earth and showed people how to live in harmony with each other. What Jesus also did was to leave it each individual to make their own choices be them good or bad.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I absolutely agree with you. That is why I said I am a Christian and NOT a member of any religious group. Over the centuries various groups have hijacked Christianity for their own evil ends making out that whatever they do is in the name of God.
For example the C of E whinge about the poor whilst being one of the richest organisations in the country. Why don't Catholic priests from the Pope down marry? The first Pope, St Peter, had a wife. It is recorded in the book of Mark that Jesus healed Peter's mother in law.
I could go on and I am sure you also could quote many reasons about religion being bad. To me believing in the ways of Jesus Christ is totally different to bring religious.
I cannot answer where did God come from nor can you answer which came first the chicken or the egg. Unfortunately none of us know the answer to some questions so we just have leave them their.
Clearly not, as I don't believe in anything you have just written. There is no God, nor Jesus and the chicken came before the egg. The egg laying evolved over time, as did the chicken it comes from.
Turtles lay eggs too, so clearly, nature found the best way to expand the species on those animals.
Saddened you think like that Ginny. Perhaps when your on your death bed and contemplating the great unknown you may change your tune.
Religion has done more good than bad though. Gives people a focus /community/role models/hope in a often evil word.
From a scientific view the closest thing to religion in my view is energy. Love. good, kindness etc etc. Its all examples of how humans if they choose can become more like that and make the world a better place.
Everyone has a choice but if we choose to try to live a good life we are becoming in tune more with that divine energy source which started it off and create a better society for all. Jesus, Guru Nanak and other religious leaders eg Abraham the patriarch of the three Abrahamic faiths loosely embodied this view as well .
God has not always been there, You want to believe that, then get on with it, and don't be sad for me. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and I won't exist for billions of years after I die. I will rot and be consumed back into the earth, where my nutrients will give life to something else. That's how nature works.
I'd also take issue with your assertion that religion has done more good than bad: it's a patently false statement in my opinion.
The bit in bold particularly gets my goat, as if non believers can't live a just life and strive for a better society.
I think this is a bit extreme comparing Jesus Christ to Stalin. There is evidence from an historian (off hand I cannot remember his name but I will let you know when I do) at the time of Jesus who confirmed the miracles of Jesus.
I’m not comparing Jesus Christ to Stalin. I’m comparing what happened after the Council of Nicea to Stalinist purges. Our version of religion/socialism or you're anathema.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Clearly not, as I don't believe in anything you have just written. There is no God, nor Jesus and the chicken came before the egg. The egg laying evolved over time, as did the chicken it comes from.
Turtles lay eggs too, so clearly, nature found the best way to expand the species on those animals.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
The dinosaur! (Birds evolved from them, so that’s the correct answer 😆)
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
If they assume God started if off, how can Dawkins &co. say their is no God? If you go back to time immemorial some thing had to be created. Matter, atoms, gases call it what you like had to be created from something are by someone.
They don’t assume God started it off. I said the Big Bang theory allows for a ‘god’ to have started it off.
Not God. Inverted commas as I was using ‘god’ as short-hand for a powerful entity with a conscious (or unconscious) will.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
I think it goes deeper than that Kingston. The essence of the Catholic church is they tried to preserve the pureness of Jesus's message as it was being watered down and argued upon like you have loosely pointed out above in the years after his death . Its why you get different strands now of Christianity eg Mormonism, protestants etc . Its a sort of deviation from Jesus's message. Its why vicars in the church of England can get married and have children where the Catholic clergy cant. You get other seriously devout members of the Catholic church as well who follow Jesus and the deeper message of trying to follow the divine. Think of Cistercian monks . Their day starts with getting up at 3.15 am to pray and at various points throughout the day alongside work which maintains their abbey.
That’s what the Catholic Church says. It’s their way of rubbishing the other versions. ‘We’re the true interpreters of Jesus Christ. We’re the first.’ Go and talk to an Orthodox follower and he or she would tell you Catholics are wayward sons. Dangerous schismatics who split from the one true faith.
And as I’ve pointed out above, re the Council of Nicea, what we call Christians (regardless of sect) were not the only followers of Jesus* at that point. * I deliver use that term as not all of them believed he was the Christ (ie Messaiah) or the Son of God.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
“With religion, good people do bad things. Without religion, bad people do bad things.”
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and I won't exist for billions of years after I die. I will rot and be consumed back into the earth, where my nutrients will give life to something else. That's how nature works.
I agree with that but I still feel there's a dimension to this whole universe man will never fathom. Your brain is just part of something more complex which makes up this universe-God.
I'd also take issue with your assertion that religion has done more good than bad: it's a patently false statement in my opinion.
The bit in bold particularly gets my goat, as if non believers can't live a just life and strive for a better society.
Again Ive seen many cases where if wasn't for Jesus /religion people would of never changed eg criminals. Sometimes it takes something more to change people. Psychologists / counsellors and the like will never get through to some people as there doing it for the money. Priests on the other hand do it as a vocation and only get paid living expenses . Its this warmth of soul aligned to Jesus/divine that changes certain hardcore people where science and the like cant touch. I would add though the effort on mans part has to be forthcoming as well.
That’s what the Catholic Church says. It’s their way of rubbishing the other versions. ‘We’re the true interpreters of Jesus Christ. We’re the first.’ Go and talk to an Orthodox follower and he or she would tell you Catholics are wayward sons. Dangerous schismatics who split from the one true faith.
And as I’ve pointed out above, re the Council of Nicea, what we call Christians (regardless of sect) were not the only followers of Jesus* at that point. * I deliver use that term as not all of them believed he was the Christ (ie Messaiah) or the Son of God.
Thing is there are quite a few ancient manuscripts from differing authors(non biblical) all within years of Jesus death that show early followers of Jesus tried to keep Jesus's sayings alive and unblemished-eg the catholic church. This is why when you go to a Catholic church service things tend to be more ritualised and holy than other Christian services. Its an effort to keep to Jesus's original teachings intact.
I think its a shame that the Eastern orthodox church split with the western church but again this is due to mans interpretation of Jesus divine message. It reminds me a bit of a rechargeable battery. When the output is not there anymore things become diluted and weak.
I believe that many of the things you mention are man made mainly by tyrants/dictators call them what you like wanting power/money and a selfish obsession. You also have to factor in the greed of people who create problems like climate change, know what the problem is and continue to ignore it for their own selfish greed ( destruction of Amazon rain forests etc.)The realignment of tectonic plates are a natural disaster for the people who suffer from their actions, but it could be argued that this is evolution or realignment of creation.
As I said before it's all a matter of our own personal choices what we believe.
No, it could not.
Why ?
Because a tectonic plate does not evolve. A movement in a tectonic plate is not a random genetic mutation, there is no selective advantage to the plate over other plates and at no point does it pass on its genetic material. If you think an earthquake is arguably an example of evolution then you have literally no understanding of what evolution is.
Psychologists / counsellors and the like will never get through to some people as there doing it for the money. Priests on the other hand do it as a vocation and only get paid living expenses.
Psychologists and Counsellors may not get through to some people that is true, but the notion it is because they are paid is a ridiculous assertion.
The argument that priests somehow do their work purely for altruistic reasons is disingenuous too. They do it for a currency but it is just not money.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
Psychologists and Counsellors may not get through to some people that is true, but the notion it is because they are paid is a ridiculous assertion.
The argument that priests somehow do their work purely for altruistic reasons is disingenuous too. They do it for a currency but it is just not money.
Its not ridiculous though. Priests do it because they have deep conviction for Jesus and the divine. Ive witnessed as well the power of a priest that is truly healing whereas the psychologist always lacks something eg the spiritual dimension which can never be grasped by science alone. Its this spiritual warmth that comes from the heart/soul of a genuine priest no phycologist/scientist will ever attain to the same degree as a priest who has spent his life developing.
I’m not comparing Jesus Christ to Stalin. I’m comparing what happened after the Council of Nicea to Stalinist purges. Our version of religion/socialism or you're anathema.
Never heard of the word so I googled it and I'm not.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
“With religion, good people do bad things. Without religion, bad people do bad things.”
The OT was about Jesus Christ and as I pointed out in other posts Religion in all it's forms has taken over the name of Jesus Christ for their own ends. In todays world it would be called buying a brand which has little, if any, relevance to how the brand started.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
The idea that people who work in healthcare of any sort only do it for the money is frankly insulting.
Up to a point I agree, but then you have private practice a paid for service which goes directly to the consultant. Also it is finding it harder to get a NHS dentist but private dental health care is easy obtainable.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Up to a point I agree, but then you have private practice a paid for service which goes directly to the consultant. Also it is finding it harder to get a NHS dentist but private dental health care is easy obtainable.
That’s for entirely political reasons DB.
People are allowed to earn a living, However, even those in private healthcare of any persuasion will have other motivating factors beyond money for pursuing their profession. The idea that being paid to carry out a service makes you less effective or righteous than someone who does not is blinkered.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
People are allowed to earn a living, However, even those in private healthcare of any persuasion will have other motivating factors beyond money for pursuing their profession. The idea that being paid to carry out a service makes you less effective or righteous than someone who does not is blinkered.
Its not blinkered though. Thing is Iam coming from personal experience(though not from a criminal background) as well as seeing others(ex criminals) who I was quite close to see the healing power of what genuine priests can do as opposed to psychologist/counsellor's who can only go far. In some cases made no dent at all on the criminal.
I agree some health professionals are not entirely doing it for the money but money remains a big factor. Priests on the other hand sacrifice so much .No marriage/ sex/children/money. All they have is the love for Jesus. Its why there are few priests now. The life is so hard but the rewards come with it. Spiritually more advanced than most of us. The classic case of this is the current Pope . Pope Francis is a beautiful living embodiment of his faith. So much warmth and sincerity. If more people were a bit more like him or tried to be a bit more like him this world would be far better than it is now. Similar to Jesus in many ways.
Its not ridiculous though. Priests do it because they have deep conviction for Jesus and the divine. Ive witnessed as well the power of a priest that is truly healing whereas the psychologist always lacks something eg the spiritual dimension which can never be grasped by science alone. Its this spiritual warmth that comes from the heart/soul of a genuine priest no phycologist/scientist will ever attain to the same degree as a priest who has spent his life developing.
The picture you paint of psychologists is one dimensional and your idea of counsellors seems very limited too. That’s not my experience.
However, I am not arguing against the benefits of a priest and the good that can come from him offering a service. I’m saying that just because he is not paid in money doesn’t mean he carries out his job selflessly as such. His currency is in trying to carry out Gods work.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
The picture you paint of psychologists is one dimensional and your idea of counsellors seems very limited too. That’s not my experience.
However, I am not arguing against the benefits of a priest and the good that can come from him offering a service. I’m saying that just because he is not paid in money doesn’t mean he carries out his job selflessly as such. His currency is in trying to carry out Gods work.
I agree some psychologists use humanistic techniques eg Carl Rodgers but some are still missing something which priests have. When you a put a full stop against any notion of there being a "divine" your limiting your consciousness to things which the human mind can never fully grasp.
Ive seen it with doctors as well. All to often they treat the physical and ignore the emotional needs just passing the buck to a psychologist who in some cases is as cold as ice. For me the emotional needs are more important than the physical . Its what in us. Hence do we choose life or just not bother and die out . This happens all to often to elderly and people who have suffered so much through illness/abuse when younger or others who have had traumatic pasts.
I agree some psychologists use humanistic techniques eg Carl Rodgers but some are still missing something which priests have. When you a put a full stop against any notion of there being a "divine" your limiting your consciousness to things which the human mind can never fully grasp.
Ive seen it with doctors as well. All to often they treat the physical and ignore the emotional needs just passing the buck to a psychologist who in some cases is as cold as ice. For me the emotional needs are more important than the physical . Its what in us. Hence do we choose life or just not bother and die out . This happens all to often to elderly and people who have suffered so much through illness/abuse when younger or others who have had traumatic pasts.
Carl Rogers did more than employ techniques. His existence and work was entirely based upon and dedicated to his beliefs. Incidentally he was a very spiritual person too and combined different religious philosophies alongside more empirically testable psychological principles. Person centred counselling is based upon a holistic approach that looks well beyond the presenting symptoms and treats a person as a whole rather than 1 aspect of them.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
Up to a point I agree, but then you have private practice a paid for service which goes directly to the consultant. Also it is finding it harder to get a NHS dentist but private dental health care is easy obtainable.
So any private practitioner is doing it solely for greed and not, perhaps, because they disagree with the system in which they would be forced to work under for the NHS?
Carl Rogers did more than employ techniques. His existence and work was entirely based upon and dedicated to his beliefs. Incidentally he was a very spiritual person too and combined different religious philosophies alongside more empirically testable psychological principles. Person centred counselling is based upon a holistic approach that looks well beyond the presenting symptoms and treats a person as a whole rather than 1 aspect of them.
Yes valid points. I note as well that Carl Rodgers was once an atheist but then became agnostic so credit to him. All Iam saying is warmth of soul goes a long way to healing people and if health professionals have some sort of belief in the divine they take it up a notch.
Yes valid points. I note as well that Carl Rodgers was once a atheist but then became agnostic so credit to him. All Iam saying is warmth of soul goes a long way to healing people and if health professionals have some sort of belief in the divine they take it up a notch.
I studied Carl Rogers and person centred counselling for 2 years at university. Hence my indignation that somehow a psychologist and counsellor cannot be spiritual too. Rogers was all of those things. There are a great many parallels between his counselling philosophy and religious principles from different persuasions too.
Most of the counsellors I have worked with, been taught by or have encountered have very deep spirituality. Most combine several different strands of counselling and psychology to most effectively treat their clients. A high majority of them also get paid to do their work which allows them to provide for themselves and their families alongside carrying out free work for charities and organisations.
Does counselling work for some? Definitely. Does it work for all? Definitely not.
In this sense then, it is very similar to religion and religious spirituality.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
So any private practitioner is doing it solely for greed and not, perhaps, because they disagree with the system in which they would be forced to work under for the NHS?
I never said or insinuated that. I was merely making an observation from your earlier post.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I never said or insinuated that. I was merely making an observation from your earlier post.
Then what point do you think you were trying to make? Private practice doesn’t go directly to the consultant or clinician either, it’s insanely ignorant to think that. You said it’s easier to find a private dentist than an NHS one when challenged that healthcare workers don’t do it solely for the money, are you suggesting that this is evidence that they only do their job because they want cash?
Then what point do you think you were trying to make? Private practice doesn’t go directly to the consultant or clinician either, it’s insanely ignorant to think that. You said it’s easier to find a private dentist than an NHS one when challenged that healthcare workers don’t do it solely for the money, are you suggesting that this is evidence that they only do their job because they want cash?
I know of a dental case where a person was charged about £250 NHS. Same practise, same dentist and same dental work done privately was listed at about £1,700? So what was the extra £1,350 being charged for?
Mariner as much as I respect your views I opened this thread to be about Jesus Christ. We seem to have diversified massively from it so I will not be answering any more of your questions on this thread on the NHS etc. If you wish to open your own thread on your topic then I will willingly discuss it their.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Your missing the bigger picture Ginny. You take them words from Richard Dawkins who hasnt got all the answers. I take my view from experience and the way religion has healed hardcore criminals and many others.
I know of a dental case where a person was charged about £250 NHS. Same practise, same dentist and same dental work done privately was listed at about £1,700? So what was the extra £1,350 being charged for?
Mariner as much as I respect your views I opened this thread to be about Jesus Christ. We seem to have diversified massively from it so I will not be answering any more of your questions on this thread on the NHS etc. If you wish to open your own thread on your topic then I will willingly discuss it their.
More time taken, better materials used, better laboratory and potentially more difficult procedure. Some materials are not paid for by the NHS. Now I’ve absolutely no idea what they were charging for but that sort of price would suggest to me either an upper and lower cobalt chrome denture (can’t get it made with cobalt chrome on the NHS) or multiple crowns or bridgework. Again, there are many materials that cannot be used for NHS when it comes to crowns and bridges. The £250 charge (would have been £282 if recent) is a band 3 treatment on the NHS which includes anything that needs a laboratory to make something. On the NHS the dentist gets 12 UDAs (units of dental activity) for any band 3 but you only get 12 no matter how many crowns (for example) you fit. The local average payment to the dentist is about £12 per UDA so a crown gets around £140 and the lab cost of the crown is approximately £30 to the dentist. If you have to fit three crowns the lab cost will be £90 but you still only get around £140 in payment meaning you’ve spent probably a couple of hours doing difficult work for not much money when you consider the high demand and high levels of skill necessary to perform the task. Which is why the UDA system is bad for patients because it encourages ‘managed neglect’ potentially.
If you’re going to cast aspersions as to a profession being money grabbers then please at least have some basic understanding of what you’re talking about.
Jesus ? load of bolloxs. Monkeyboy - page 1 sentance 1.
All the good books written to control the masses and creates nothing but greed!
i do believe in something but not in books written by men.
Pleased you believe in something Monkeyboy but Jesus existed. I would bet my life on it. In 1986 for instance they discovered a boat in the sea of Galilee where story's of Jesus was often mentioned in the bible albeit could have been embellished by later man. Carbon dated to Jesus's time. Likewise archaeologists are constantly finding new stuff even now all linked to when Jesus was alive.
If you go to the holy land it will change some part of you Iam almost certain be it consciously or subconsciously .
Pleased you believe in something Monkeyboy but Jesus existed. I would bet my life on it. In 1986 for instance they discovered a boat in the sea of Galilee where story's of Jesus was often mentioned in the bible albeit could have been embellished by later man. Carbon dated to Jesus's time. Likewise archaeologists are constantly finding new stuff even now all linked to when Jesus was alive.
If you go to the holy land it will change some part of you Iam almost certain be it consciously or subconsciously .
No one disputes that that time did exist, none of this proves anything about Jesus or what he did or didn’t preach. There is no proof he was the son of God if he did, he certainly would be unlikely to be a white man with blue eyes as your church likes to depict him. If they found a bit of rusty metal dating to the time of when King Arthur was supposed to be alive would this be proof he existed?
No one disputes that that time did exist, none of this proves anything about Jesus or what he did or didn’t preach. There is no proof he was the son of God if he did, he certainly would be unlikely to be a white man with blue eyes as your church likes to depict him. If they found a bit of rusty metal dating to the time of when King Arthur was supposed to be alive would this be proof he existed?
Without going back to the film thread of which numerous things have been said there you need to look at the hard facts. I think the closest evidence we have of what Jesus tried to do is Marks gospel which is one of the earliest accounts of Jesus life/message. Likewise within years of Jesus's death a movement started to spread all founded on Jesus's message which is still alive today. Trying to do good and following the divine way. Subsequent holy men have followed suit notably the most recent large one with the Guru Nanak and the founding of Sikhism starting in India.
Iam not saying he was the son of God(he may of been though) but he was certainly a holy man. Think of a embellished modern day Dalai Lama.
No one disputes that that time did exist, none of this proves anything about Jesus or what he did or didn’t preach. There is no proof he was the son of God if he did, he certainly would be unlikely to be a white man with blue eyes as your church likes to depict him. If they found a bit of rusty metal dating to the time of when King Arthur was supposed to be alive would this be proof he existed?
I wrote on a previous post about an historian who lived at the time of Jesus and have now remembered his name.
What did the historian Josephus say about Jesus? About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
Nobody knows his colouring but given the books of Peter, the first Pope, their is ample evidence of the life of Jesus.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
A note of caution on Josephus, as an historian, he was something of a puzzle. On the one hand, he's an ‘eyewitness’ to many of these supposed events that took place. In many cases, he's the only source we have for some very important events and stories. Josephus was known to embellish as do most ancient historians. They tell a story.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
A note of caution on Josephus, as an historian, he was something of a puzzle. On the one hand, he's an ‘eyewitness’ to many of these supposed events that took place. In many cases, he's the only source we have for some very important events and stories. Josephus was known to embellish as do most ancient historians. They tell a story.
Unfortunately in those days written communication and records were limited to the educated few and scribes. We can only rely upon this evidence as that of the words of Josephus. Certainly St Peter did exist so you can trace him back to Jesus Christ. Jesus lived many years ago and apart from the scriptures their is little other written evidence, so reading what Josephus says adds to the proof of the life of Jesus Christ.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Unfortunately in those days written communication and records were limited to the educated few and scribes. We can only rely upon this evidence as that of the words of Josephus. Certainly St Peter did exist so you can trace him back to Jesus Christ. Jesus lived many years ago and apart from the scriptures their is little other written evidence, so reading what Josephus says adds to the proof of the life of Jesus Christ.
I’m playing devils advocate a little here but it didn’t take much reading to find those questioning Josephus’s credibility. Of course all evidence should be scrutinised if it’s to be taken as proof of something.
To be clear, so long as it’s not harm doing, I don’t think anyone has to justify their faith to anyone but for the purpose of discussion and educating myself (especially as someone without faith) I find the argument and counter argument fascinating.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
I’m playing devils advocate a little here but it didn’t take much reading to find those questioning Josephus’s credibility. Of course all evidence should be scrutinised if it’s to be taken as proof of something.
To be clear, so long as it’s not harm doing, I don’t think anyone has to justify their faith to anyone but for the purpose of discussion and educating myself (especially as someone without faith) I find the argument and counter argument fascinating.
Thing is Sandford look around the world and most cultures/society's have some sort of belief in the divine. Its the atheists that are in the minority .
I respect the fact you have no faith but that could change. Hence what happens if something which science cant explain forces you to change your views. Its not within the realms of impossibility. Without going into detail something similar happened to me as you may know when small. An event very profound and a one off.
Thing is Sandford look around the world and most cultures/society's have some sort of belief in the divine. Its the atheists that are in the minority .
I respect the fact you have no faith but that could change. Hence what happens if something which science cant explain forces you to change your views. Its not within the realms of impossibility. Without going into detail something similar happened to me as you may know when small. An event very profound and a one off.
I believe a lot of people find religion in answer to to the existential question of purpose. I also believe it helps people face the prospect of death. I would love to be convinced of religious faith but I am not yet, however, I’m not closed off to any possibility but I do think it’s human nature to ascribe meaning to scenarios and look for reason which may or may not exist. I do think a lot about spirituality but not within the confines of a particular religion.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.
from Wikipedia
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years.
Quoted Text
Flavius Josephus, original name Joseph Ben Matthias, (born ad 37/38, Jerusalem—died ad 100, Rome), Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66–70 and on earlier Jewish history.
also from Wikipedia
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
Thanks for the links about the gospels. I kind of already knew the basic facts about them. My view of them is they maybe were embellished but were certainly about the words/works of Jesus a radical Jewish preacher. I look at some of them disciples and the impact Jesus had on them must of been awe inspiring .Hence look at the pain they went through in believing in his innate message of doing good and following the divine eg crucified, stoned, clubbed and burnt to death. Its this passion amongst Jesus's disciples that set the scene for Jesus's movement that changed the world. There were other Jewish prophets before and after the time of Jesus but none had the lasting legacy Jesus did.
I believe a lot of people find religion in answer to to the existential question of purpose. I also believe it helps people face the prospect of death. I would love to be convinced of religious faith but I am not yet, however, I’m not closed off to any possibility but I do think it’s human nature to ascribe meaning to scenarios and look for reason which may or may not exist. I do think a lot about spirituality but not within the confines of a particular religion.
As I have posted I believe in Christianity and not religion. All you have to do is read what Jesus said and did which is what my Christianity is based on. I do not agree with religions be them old time or new life etc. The problems I have is that all religions fall short on Christianity. ie The latest is the C of E want to bring climate change into their church. Nothing wrong with discussing climate change but where did Jesus preach on this?
I think you have to separate Jesus Christ from todays religions who tend to use his name for their own agenda.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I mean lets face it in another 2000 years Karen from facebook may have her own book that people worship as the gospel.
Anything written 2000 years ago must be taken with a pinch of salt, lets face it they must have been fantasists.
Unfortunately I don't do facebook and have never read Karen's (whoever she may be) book so I can't comment on it.
From your historical analogy how far back do you accept history. Obviously not 2,000 years ago so cuts out pre Roman history. Looking to the future how many people in 2,000 years time would be willing to accept the Nazi's killed around 6 million Jews in their death camps. Humans killing 6 millions humans on purpose, pure fiction. Yet we know it is true.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years.
also from Wikipedia
Their is a lot said about how the gospels were written and to our modern world it is strange and odd that, given our technology, we should accept them. You have to remember this that the people in those days did not have social media, mobile phones, landline phones, cameras, e mail, morse code and any other means of communication apart from word of mouth. (Yes I do get 10 or more in a line whisper a sentence and it has changed at the end of it.)
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Unfortunately I don't do facebook and have never read Karen's (whoever she may be) book so I can't comment on it.
From your historical analogy how far back do you accept history. Obviously not 2,000 years ago so cuts out pre Roman history. Looking to the future how many people in 2,000 years time would be willing to accept the Nazi's killed around 6 million Jews in their death camps. Humans killing 6 millions humans on purpose, pure fiction. Yet we know it is true.
An industrialised nation killing 6 million people over the space of 5 years is rather less fanciful than say a man walking on water or coming back from the dead.
Plus you can literally go to Auschwitz and other camps and see the evidence for yourself.
An industrialised nation killing 6 million people over the space of 5 years is rather less fanciful than say a man walking on water or coming back from the dead.
Plus you can literally go to Auschwitz and other camps and see the evidence for yourself.
I think that you are taking your first comment away from the text it answered.
You can go to the Holy Land and see the evidence for yourself, see posts from Rick. You can also read about St. Peter as I have said in previous posts. At the end of the day it is all about choice. You either believe, or want to believe, in the ways of Jesus Christ or you don't. What I am saying is that believing in Jesus Christ is not joining a religious cult but something personal for you.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
You say other religions (which you don’t believe in) have their own agendas. Im asking as opposed to Christianity (which you do believe in) which doesn’t I’m guessing?
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
You say other religions (which you don’t believe in) have their own agendas. Im asking as opposed to Christianity (which you do believe in) which doesn’t I’m guessing?
C of E, RC, Methodist, New Life type church's ( Particular Americanised ones)
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
If Jesus was such a miracle worker why would the Romans want to kill him? Just for his wine making abilities alone he’d be an absolute legend, never mind the demand for helping crippled and blind soldiers! No it’s just fairy tales for the weak minded to believe, if there was such a man he was certainly a liar and a con artist, a lot like his mum I suppose it’s no wonder the Romans crucified him.
If Jesus was such a miracle worker why would the Romans want to kill him? Just for his wine making abilities alone he’d be an absolute legend, never mind the demand for helping crippled and blind soldiers! No it’s just fairy tales for the weak minded to believe, if there was such a man he was certainly a liar and a con artist, a lot like his mum I suppose it’s no wonder the Romans crucified him.
People who believe in Jesus are weak minded?
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
So other religions have agendas but Christianity (your choice) is pure and without agenda?
I didn't say anything like that. The only pure Christian was Jesus Christ and all that try to copy his ways fall short somewhere in their lives. Being a Christian, trying to copy the teachings of Jesus Christ, is what being a Christian is about. No agenda.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
If Jesus was such a miracle worker why would the Romans want to kill him? Just for his wine making abilities alone he’d be an absolute legend, never mind the demand for helping crippled and blind soldiers! No it’s just fairy tales for the weak minded to believe, if there was such a man he was certainly a liar and a con artist, a lot like his mum I suppose it’s no wonder the Romans crucified him.
Because Jesus's message appealed to the mass of Jewish peasants of which most were illiterate. His message of doing good and getting salvation in another life carried a lot of weight. Bear in mind as well that Romans heavily taxed the Jews and were unpopular in them times. Likewise Jewish people had been looking forward to the Jewish messiah which would save them and bring about freedom and a return to power led by a Jew and not a Roman after being violently suppressed by the Roman authorities in various Jewish revolts. The bottom line is Jesus's message was so radical that it attracted a lot of converts that the Romans were scared of loosing control of this small territory where Jesus lived in Palestine.
If Jesus was such a miracle worker why would the Romans want to kill him? Just for his wine making abilities alone he’d be an absolute legend, never mind the demand for helping crippled and blind soldiers! No it’s just fairy tales for the weak minded to believe, if there was such a man he was certainly a liar and a con artist, a lot like his mum I suppose it’s no wonder the Romans crucified him.
You seem to have missed out the Jewish leaders of the day who feared Jesus. It was their influence that brought his death. The Roman leaders want a quite life with no trouble makers, hence the death of Jesus was the easy option for them
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I didn't say anything like that. The only pure Christian was Jesus Christ and all that try to copy his ways fall short somewhere in their lives. Being a Christian, trying to copy the teachings of Jesus Christ, is what being a Christian is about. No agenda.
I’m afraid you’ve said something very like that-
To use your words-
“I think you have to separate Jesus Christ from todays religions who tend to use his name for their own agenda.
“ Being a Christian, trying to copy the teachings of Jesus Christ, is what being a Christian is about. No agenda.”
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
I think that you are taking your first comment away from the text it answered.
You can go to the Holy Land and see the evidence for yourself, see posts from Rick. You can also read about St. Peter as I have said in previous posts. At the end of the day it is all about choice. You either believe, or want to believe, in the ways of Jesus Christ or you don't. What I am saying is that believing in Jesus Christ is not joining a religious cult but something personal for you.
You can go to the Holy Land and see that the places in the bible existed, that is it. There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, turned water in to wine or walked on water. It is entirey subjective. Nobody can say definitively that he did and nobody can say definitively that he didn't. It's exasperating that you and Rick can't seem to grasp that.
You can go to the Holy Land and see that the places in the bible existed, that is it. There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, turned water in to wine or walked on water. It is entirey subjective. Nobody can say definitively that he did and nobody can say definitively that he didn't. It's exasperating that you and Rick can't seem to grasp that.
I agree with that though Mariner. Its a question of faith whether Jesus performed them miracles. For me I tend to lean on the side of Jesus being a spiritually more aware person than most and he refined what the patriarch of the Jewish faith Abraham originally stood for. Jesus wanted to establish the kingdom of God in his society and do away with many of the rituals surrounding Judaism. In more simpler terms try to good in mind and body and aim to put the divine at the forefront of your life.
Either you or I are confused here so I will try to clarify.
My choice is to be a non denomination Christian without any agenda.
I am strongly of the opinion that other so called Christian church's ie C of E etc do have agendas of their own and are not pure.
You said you didn’t say anything like that. I used your own words to show you that you had. You then asked what my opinion was regarding weak mindedness and believing in Jesus. I answered. You’ve now clarified and confirmed what I said you’d said originally. I’d say you definitely are confused I probably am now. Glad we’ve cleared that up😂
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
You said you didn’t say anything like that. I used your own words to show you that you had. You then asked what my opinion was regarding weak mindedness and believing in Jesus. I answered. You’ve now clarified and confirmed what I said you’d said originally. I’d say you definitely are confused I probably am now. Glad we’ve cleared that up😂
So am I.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I would class myself as an Atheist but I’m always intrigued and open to listening to alternative views, but the problem for me with the Jesus story is that the story has been told many times before his arrival. Richard Dawkins covered this subject well in is excellent book the God delusion.
Not conversations I expected on the Fishy.
I found Dawkin's book largely misunderstood faith, creating 'straw men' to knock down, rather than engaging with the real thing.
You might find this interesting on the whole Zeitgeist Christian Myth stuff:
There is no evidence that Jesus existed. The romans, if they were worried about the message he was preaching, certainly didn't think he was important enough to mention.
We only have the stories written years after his death by people who were followers of this new religion, and considering some of those stories said he could cure leprosy etc. with just a touch or that he fed 5000 people with 5 fish and 12 loaves of bread or some such nonsense, oh and the coming back from the dead thing. He is also considered a prophet in Islam, a religion which didn't rise until 700 years or so after his supposed death.
My point is that, in most circumstances, you would at least question something that had no basis in fact and that was only written about years after the alleged events and yet here we are a whole religion unquestioned.
There is no evidence that Jesus existed. The romans, if they were worried about the message he was preaching, certainly didn't think he was important enough to mention.
We only have the stories written years after his death by people who were followers of this new religion, and considering some of those stories said he could cure leprosy etc. with just a touch or that he fed 5000 people with 5 fish and 12 loaves of bread or some such nonsense, oh and the coming back from the dead thing. He is also considered a prophet in Islam, a religion which didn't rise until 700 years or so after his supposed death.
My point is that, in most circumstances, you would at least question something that had no basis in fact and that was only written about years after the alleged events and yet here we are a whole religion unquestioned.
Whether you think he's a naughty boy or not, is another matter.
If you read my first post on this subject I did say I believed that Jesus existed. However there is absolutely no factual basis to support that suggestion. My own personal view is that the Jesus story could actually be based on the lives of more than one person. This method of re-writing facts has been used throughout history and is often used nowadays in films based on true happenings. To say it's not a credible position based on an article in the Guardian is a little unfair. Credibility should surely be backed up by proven facts.
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
If you read my first post on this subject I did say I believed that Jesus existed. However there is absolutely no factual basis to support that suggestion. My own personal view is that the Jesus story could actually be based on the lives of more than one person. This method of re-writing facts has been used throughout history and is often used nowadays in films based on true happenings. To say it's not a credible position based on an article in the Guardian is a little unfair. Credibility should surely be backed up by proven facts.
I think we have discussed this before and my answer is :-
What did the historian Josephus say about Jesus? About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
Their is also my posts regarding St Peter.
So although It's good to accept that you believe Jesus existed I think we will differ on the proof.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
If you read my first post on this subject I did say I believed that Jesus existed. However there is absolutely no factual basis to support that suggestion. My own personal view is that the Jesus story could actually be based on the lives of more than one person. This method of re-writing facts has been used throughout history and is often used nowadays in films based on true happenings. To say it's not a credible position based on an article in the Guardian is a little unfair. Credibility should surely be backed up by proven facts.
The gospels were not first-hand accounts. And Jesus would have spoken Aramaic but the scriptures were written in Greek. I assume everyone on here has to read English translations of the Greek. Not only that we don't have original copies of the gospels, just early replicas. The only first-hand accounts of Jesus are the Paul epistles, and some of them are believed to be non-genuine.
As you say it was standard practice to embellish stories. There are also the non-canonical gospels, I have read a few of them, shorter and easier to read than the canonical works of which I have only read one in full. The decision on what manuscripts formed what we consider the new testament is in itself an interesting story as there were plenty that missed the cut
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
I think we have discussed this before and my answer is :-
What did the historian Josephus say about Jesus? About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
Their is also my posts regarding St Peter.
So although It's good to accept that you believe Jesus existed I think we will differ on the proof.
Is the following excerpt from a post by BAWBA accurate in your view DB?
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
The gospels were not first-hand accounts. And Jesus would have spoken Aramaic but the scriptures were written in Greek. I assume everyone on here has to read English translations of the Greek. Not only that we don't have original copies of the gospels, just early replicas. The only first-hand accounts of Jesus are the Paul epistles, and some of them are believed to be non-genuine.
As you say it was standard practice to embellish stories. There are also the non-canonical gospels, I have read a few of them, shorter and easier to read than the canonical works of which I have only read one in full. The decision on what manuscripts formed what we consider the new testament is in itself an interesting story as there were plenty that missed the cut
A reasonable assessment of the situation as it was, given the very limited recordings of any actual events in that era. This is why I prefer to look at Jesus from St Peter backwards and not the birth of Jesus forwards. As I have posted St Peter, the first Pope, was a disciple of Jesus. You can then follow the line backward..
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Saw a link from one of the football threads to this and felt like I had to get involved. I love these kinds of discussion and, as I think somebody has already mentioned, this is The Fishy at its finest (i.e. a discussion about one of the most controversial issues but conducted in a kind, respectful manner).
Personal statement: I am an atheist, though was brought up Christian. We went to church a bit and during school holidays I ended up in Christian school clubs, you know, those summer camp things. Wasn’t until I was 18/19 that I felt comfortable identifying as an atheist – before then I just kind of assumed I was a Christian by default, despite having no strong religious feelings.
I have two questions/observations: 1) how do you think children should be brought up? Dawkins writes well on this point, that there should be no such thing as a “Christian child” or a “Muslim child” or a “Hindu child” or, yes, an “atheist child”, just a secular upbringing until they are old enough to decide for themselves (how this could ever actually be done I don’t know, but it’s interesting all the same).
2) How do Christians feel towards other religions? If you think they are hokum, on what grounds? And then how do you justify your own belief in the likely event that the same charges you put to another religion could probably just as easily be applied to Christianity?
P.S. I am a passionate believer in religious freedom, I am just interested in believers’ views on this.
I was brought up similar to you but differ from you as I always believed in Jesus.
!/ It is often said schoolteachers are Guardian readers so to that extent should they teach? I think regardless of how children are brought up we are in a world of information so they easily come to their own conclusions.
2/ Depends upon your definition of being a Christian. Do you mean a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus, or someone who belongs to or is an organisation religion or otherwise that purports to using the name Christian
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Is the following excerpt from a post by BAWBA accurate in your view DB?
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years.
What’s your view then DB?
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
Saw a link from one of the football threads to this and felt like I had to get involved. I love these kinds of discussion and, as I think somebody has already mentioned, this is The Fishy at its finest (i.e. a discussion about one of the most controversial issues but conducted in a kind, respectful manner).
I have two questions/observations: 1) how do you think children should be brought up? Dawkins writes well on this point, that there should be no such thing as a “Christian child” or a “Muslim child” or a “Hindu child” or, yes, an “atheist child”, just a secular upbringing until they are old enough to decide for themselves (how this could ever actually be done I don’t know, but it’s interesting all the same).
Good post.
I think Dawkins should not bring secular into it. There's more to this universe than his almost certain view that something started from nothing. Children for me should be brought up thinking that science doesnt have all the answers .Key for me is the view that good will always prevail over the bad.
2) How do Christians feel towards other religions? If you think they are hokum, on what grounds? And then how do you justify your own belief in the likely event that the same charges you put to another religion could probably just as easily be applied to Christianity?
P.S. I am a passionate believer in religious freedom, I am just interested in believers’ views on this.
I try to take each of these in turn and offer my view.
All the main religions( Hinduism. Judaism, Christianity ,Islam, Sikhism) loosely have the same ideals. A belief in the divine.
Hinduism the oldest of the big 5 . Ancient mans attempt to understand it all. I agree with Hindus in that a divine presence is reflected in all things eg creation. However where I struggle to believe is their belief in reincarnation.
Judaism. The oldest religion based on the belief in one God. I admire Abraham the original patriarch of the Abrahamic faiths in trying to understand it all and pose a belief in one God .I think he didnt fully capture it though . I dont think God spoke to him as its claimed in the bible .Its more his mindset trying to understand something beyond all of us.
Christianity. Jesus for me was influenced by Judaism growing up . Maybe not the son of God in a literal sense but certainly in a symbolic sense. He tried to get to the essence of God and largely bypassed a lot of the Jewish traditions at the time of his birth hence why he was crucified.
Islam. Muhammad reminds me of Abraham the patriarch of the Jews. Trying to understand something beyond anyone's grasp. He was affected by the evil in his day and tried to understand it all through his mediations in the cave near Mecca. Whilst I don't think an angel from God gave him the Quran it was his own consciousness trying to understand and redefine what he felt were problems with the Jewish/Christian take on things. His idea in one God carries a lot of weight though.
Sikhism. Guru Nanak the founder of Sikhism is someone I deeply admire. Tried to makes sense of things at a time where there were a lot of strife between Hindus/Muslims. Like Abraham/Jesus/Muhammed before him tried to get to the essence of it all. Where I fail to agree on is again the issue of reincarnation of which he was probably shaped by his Hindu background in childhood. For me it doesn't ring true in the literal sense eg you die and come back in another life form until you are pure enough to meet your maker.
As noted I would say Iam very religious and take something good from all religions. Its like differing paths to the same source .All carry weight though none like science can fully ever get it spot on. The mystery's of our universe will be to much for any mind to fully grasp it all.
2/ Depends upon your definition of being a Christian. Do you mean a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus, or someone who belongs to or is an organisation religion or otherwise that purports to using the name Christian
See I'm still not massively clear on how you are splitting "being a Christian" and "believing the teachings of Jesus". I'm unsure on how you can be one but not the other?
I just wondered what Christian believers' opinions are on those who follow the teachings of Allah (Islam) or Brahma/Vishnu/Shive (Hinduism), etc. In my experience (which I know doesn't necessarily equate to anybody on here), people are quick to denounce other religions but then take umbrage with those who, in a similar way, then denounce their own religion. It comes across as a bit of a double-standard, if you see what I mean?
1) how do you think children should be brought up? Dawkins writes well on this point, that there should be no such thing as a “Christian child” or a “Muslim child” or a “Hindu child” or, yes, an “atheist child”, just a secular upbringing until they are old enough to decide for themselves (how this could ever actually be done I don’t know, but it’s interesting all the same).
I didn't have my daughter baptised so she could make up her own mind when she was older (following the same principle that I was never confirmed through my own personal choice). I would be very happy if she were to choose to be baptised or adopt some other faith of her choice. I have even encouraged her to do so on one or two occasions, and we sometimes discuss parables and so on (I have knowledge of the scriptures but no faith), but she has never been interested.
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
See I'm still not massively clear on how you are splitting "being a Christian" and "believing the teachings of Jesus". I'm unsure on how you can be one but not the other?
I just wondered what Christian believers' opinions are on those who follow the teachings of Allah (Islam) or Brahma/Vishnu/Shive (Hinduism), etc. In my experience (which I know doesn't necessarily equate to anybody on here), people are quick to denounce other religions but then take umbrage with those who, in a similar way, then denounce their own religion. It comes across as a bit of a double-standard, if you see what I mean?
Isn't it a bit like supporting another football club? If there was only one football club it would be a bit pointless. The first two commandments basically state there is only one god and you have to worship him alone, so right from day one the existence of other rival faiths are baked into the regions built upon the Old Testament. If there really only was one religion I think people would argue about differences and still more or less invent different factions as has happened with all of the Abrahamic faiths. Just like we all support Town but all argue about everything (including Town!)
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
Is the following excerpt from a post by BAWBA accurate in your view DB?
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
A question I would like the believers to answer please.
What are your views on god.
1, killing innocent babies on the night of the passover.
2. Killing everybody apart from Noah and his family in the flood.
Not everybody was evil.
There just storys embellished by man Pete over probable events that did happen due to natural causes eg the flood. Gods place in history particulary with the Jewish/Christian one was constant change as man developed new ideas on what the divine represented.
There just storys embellished by man Pete over probable events that did happen due to natural causes eg the flood. Gods place in history particulary with the Jewish/Christian one was constant change as man developed new ideas on what the divine represented.
Seriously question do you think it’s time then that the bible comes with a disclaimer informing the reader that these stories are in fact fictitious, because there are millions of people who still believe the book is the words of God.
Seriously question do you think it’s time then that the bible comes with a disclaimer informing the reader that these stories are in fact fictitious, because there are millions of people who still believe the book is the words of God.
I think its a personal thing for people. Some give more weight than others to the storys.Pope Francis from what Ive seen doesnt believe in the bible word for word but sees the deeper philosophical meaning behind them eg a battle between good v bad.
A question I would like the believers to answer please.
What are your views on god.
1, killing innocent babies on the night of the passover.
2. Killing everybody apart from Noah and his family in the flood.
Not everybody was evil.
This is one of the things I really don't quite understand. There are so many awful stories in the bible, particularly the Old Testament. There's that very famous quote from Dawkins:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
What I don't understand is how you can filter out the stories which are supposed to be fictitious from those which are taken to be truth. I get that there are different interpretations of the reading of the bible, but how do you take any good from a story where God asks Abraham to kill his own son, just to prove his devotion? Or the gang raping of Lot's daughters in (I think) Judges? The New Testament is significantly better, morally, but does that excuse the Old?
This is one of the things I really don't quite understand. There are so many awful stories in the bible, particularly the Old Testament. There's that very famous quote from Dawkins:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
What I don't understand is how you can filter out the stories which are supposed to be fictitious from those which are taken to be truth. I get that there are different interpretations of the reading of the bible, but how do you take any good from a story where God asks Abraham to kill his own son, just to prove his devotion? Or the gang raping of Lot's daughters in (I think) Judges? The New Testament is significantly better, morally, but does that excuse the Old?
I doubt God asked any of them things though eg sacrificing your own son. It was man that made that all up albeit an extreme view which was meshed with the practises of that time amongst the Hebrews.
Valid point on why leave some story's out but include others. Probably a reflection of society evolving and attaching new dimensions to one which previously wasn't so apparent. Hence as the Bible story progresses which again is based on actual events embellished by man people begin to maybe realise that love and the effect that has on each other carries a lot of weight. This was then attributed to the divine and so forth is represented in the bible.
See I'm still not massively clear on how you are splitting "being a Christian" and "believing the teachings of Jesus". I'm unsure on how you can be one but not the other?
I just wondered what Christian believers' opinions are on those who follow the teachings of Allah (Islam) or Brahma/Vishnu/Shive (Hinduism), etc. In my experience (which I know doesn't necessarily equate to anybody on here), people are quick to denounce other religions but then take umbrage with those who, in a similar way, then denounce their own religion. It comes across as a bit of a double-standard, if you see what I mean?
Firstly I look at the teachings of Jesus. Then I look at how others interpret it and use their interpretations.
EG Ask a Catholic why their clergy from the Pope don't marry. It's not our way or replies along those lines they will say. Then ask them to confirm that the first Pope was Peter, St Peter. Yes they will say. So, as I did to one gentleman, tell him that one of the first miracles of Jesus was that he healed Peters mother in law( In Mark) so why haven't any Popes married since. ( No sarcastic comments please) He didn't know about the scripture in Mark because nobody told him.
Their is much ado about the poor and hungry, people living rough etc. So why did many people who regard themselves as Christians collect £250,000 to mend a church local tower at Waithe which is only used for ,I believe, one service a year.
I cannot comment on Islam etc but I do believe that it is a persons personal choice as to what they believe. I did have a conversation once with a Hindu Guru/Swami who told me, as part of the conversation, that if I eat beef I would die and it was offensive; as that was his belief. I pointed out that eating beef would not kill me nor has it to millions of others and that offerings of killed beef were common scriptures in the Old Testament. To try to find mutual ground I pointed out to him that although I did not agree with what he said I did respect him for his views, and that he should reciprocate. He told me that he would never ever do that and that I was wrong. I pointed out their no point in continuing and left him to his congregation. I cannot express the venom in the manner he spoke to me but came away the distinct impression of how wars break out with extremists. I hasten to add that not all Hindu's are like this, particular doctors, and he probably was an extremist.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
A question I would like the believers to answer please.
What are your views on god.
1, killing innocent babies on the night of the passover.
2. Killing everybody apart from Noah and his family in the flood.
Not everybody was evil.
Firstly what you are referring to is in the Old Testament and not after the birth of Jesus Christ.
1/ This was because the Pharaoh did not do as he promised and was a last resort. You have omitted to say that the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites for decades.
2/ Unfortunately we do not know everybody was not evil but later in the Old Testament we are told of Sodom and Gomorrah and the fact that only Lot was not evil.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Seriously question do you think it’s time then that the bible comes with a disclaimer informing the reader that these stories are in fact fictitious, because there are millions of people who still believe the book is the words of God.
No. As much as many ask for proof of the Bible, which is provided and ignored on this thread, they have offered no evidence to the contrary. In our modern age everything is virtually recorded, in the age of the Bible few could read or write. It was 99'9% word of mouth.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
My view is you either believe the bible is all true or none of it is.
I had several discussions with my parents about things in the bible but they could not answer them.
Another thing about god.
The ten commandments the first two are all about him when you would think Thou shall not Kill would be the most important .
The thing it took me along time to realise is very simple and that the Bible is in 2 parts the Old and New Testaments. The old testament is pre Jesus and is basically for the Jews, Israelites describe them as you wish. The ten commandments were aimed at them, not us gentiles as we did not come into the picture until 1,000's years later (Book Peter).
Even though God had freed them from the Egyptians they decided to melt their gold to form an idol to pray to, which is where the first commandment came from.
You can ask many questions to many people about the Bible and your parents gave you the right answers. Nobody knows all the answers and if they tell you they do then they are liars. A Reverend once said to me that the devil couldn't get to him. I point out that the only person I knew oft hat the devil couldn't get at was Jesus, and that he was not Jesus. We have spoken for 15 years and he now ignores me.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. Do you believe this to be a true statement?
It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. As far as you are concerned is this true?
Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years. Do you agree with this?
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
and Josephus probably didn't witness anything that Jesus did. Do you believe this to be a true statement?
It is generally regarded that Jesus, if he did indeed exist, was crucified somewhere between 30 AD and 36 AD. As far as you are concerned is this true?
Josephus was born in 37 or 38 AD, so by the time he started writing about the life of Jesus, he had already been dead for at least 20 years. Do you agree with this?
I thought I had answered these but could have hit the post button hard enough.
The approximate dates of the death of Jesus are true and presumably the birth of Josephus. Given that it would be impossible for Josephus to have met Jesus.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I thought I had answered these but could have hit the post button hard enough.
The approximate dates of the death of Jesus are true and presumably the birth of Josephus. Given that it would be impossible for Josephus to have met Jesus.
No worries. I’m finding it all really enlightening to be honest. So much I don’t know, so it’s proving a bit of an education. Everyday is a school day as they say.
I did a bit of mentoring for a local project out of the Calvary church. Run by a lovely couple who I got to know through work at the time. I did it on the basis they left me out of the religious side of things as I wasn’t interested then, which is something I regret just from the knowledge side of things. But I was younger then.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
This is one of the things I really don't quite understand. There are so many awful stories in the bible, particularly the Old Testament. There's that very famous quote from Dawkins:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
What I don't understand is how you can filter out the stories which are supposed to be fictitious from those which are taken to be truth. I get that there are different interpretations of the reading of the bible, but how do you take any good from a story where God asks Abraham to kill his own son, just to prove his devotion? Or the gang raping of Lot's daughters in (I think) Judges? The New Testament is significantly better, morally, but does that excuse the Old?
The old testament was written for the Jews etc. and should not be confused with the New Testament. The basic thing about the Old Testament was the prophecy of the forth coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. The New Testament is not an apology for the events in the Old Testament but a description of the life of Jesus Christ and the evangelism of him.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
No worries. I’m finding it all really enlightening to be honest. So much I don’t know, so it’s proving a bit of an education. Everyday is a school day as they say.
I did a bit of mentoring for a local project out of the Calvary church. Run by a lovely couple who I got to know through work at the time. I did it on the basis they left me out of the religious side of things as I wasn’t interested then, which is something I regret just from the knowledge side of things. But I was younger then.
I don't know if this helps but I have found that their is a big difference between various people who say they are Christians. The way I look at it is see what people do, look at their actions and then make your decisions about them and their organisation. Scratch the surface and look underneath .You will then, with experience, come to see who are Christians and who use Christianity for their own ends.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I don't know if this helps but I have found that their is a big difference between various people who say they are Christians. The way I look at it is see what people do, look at their actions and then make your decisions about them and their organisation. Scratch the surface and look underneath .You will then, with experience, come to see who are Christians and who use Christianity for their own ends.
I think that can be generalised as an approach to people in everyday life to be fair. I’m assuming you meant that as an overarching philosophy rather than about the couple I mentioned. The couple involved were very committed Christians and I held them in the highest regard. They opened my eyes to the benefit of charity work and also the sense of community that arose because of their faith. Salt of the earth.
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
I think that can be generalised as an approach to people in everyday life to be fair. I’m assuming you meant that as an overarching philosophy rather than about the couple I mentioned. The couple involved were very committed Christians and I held them in the highest regard. They opened my eyes to the benefit of charity work and also the sense of community that arose because of their faith. Salt of the earth.
You mentioned no names so I did not criticise them. What I posted is something thing that has gradually come to me over the years.
I think I mentioned this on another post C of E members collected from various means £250,000 to maintain the tower of Waithe church for a once a year service.. Would that money donated to the food kitchen in town be a better use of the money. Like wise I know of a person that offered to help people if they have mental health problems. One of these I would consider to be a Christian by their actions and one I wouldn't.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I think I mentioned this on another post C of E members collected from various means £250,000 to maintain the tower of Waithe church for a once a year service.. Would that money donated to the food kitchen in town be a better use of the money. Like wise I know of a person that offered to help people if they have mental health problems. One of these I would consider to be a Christian by their actions and one I wouldn't.
There is a pervading attitude that the religious - particularly Christians - have some sort of higher moral standing in society. Of course, generally being a nice person, treating others with the respect you'd want shown to yourself, showing empathy, generosity, a kindness of spirit, etc., are not "Christian values", they are just values that normal, decent human being lives by, regardless of faith.
Yet it is so embedded in societies worldwide. There is nothing stopping, for example, an atheist American president from being sworn into office by placing their hand on a copy of The God Delusion by Dawkins and making their oath (it's written in the constitution that any old book can be used). However there has *never* been an openly atheist president of the US, because they to come out as an atheist would destroy them long before they became party leader.
Many people seem to simply trust the religious, even though there's ample evidence to suggest they are not some kind of higher moral being.
There is a pervading attitude that the religious - particularly Christians - have some sort of higher moral standing in society. Of course, generally being a nice person, treating others with the respect you'd want shown to yourself, showing empathy, generosity, a kindness of spirit, etc., are not "Christian values", they are just values that normal, decent human being lives by, regardless of faith.
Yet it is so embedded in societies worldwide. There is nothing stopping, for example, an atheist American president from being sworn into office by placing their hand on a copy of The God Delusion by Dawkins and making their oath (it's written in the constitution that any old book can be used). However there has *never* been an openly atheist president of the US, because they to come out as an atheist would destroy them long before they became party leader.
Many people seem to simply trust the religious, even though there's ample evidence to suggest they are not some kind of higher moral being.
These are excellent Christian and none Christian values. I believe that I have already answered comments on religious people on other posts
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
What a fantastic day Easter Sunday is. The resurrection of Jesus Christ all those years ago from death. Proof of life after death, all we have to do is believe.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
What a fantastic day Easter Sunday is. The resurrection of Jesus Christ all those years ago from death. Proof of life after death, all we have to do is believe.
Utter nonsense in my opinion. Entitled to your view but I find it a ridiculous one, sorry.
Do I believe in the resurrection ?. I would like to but my head says the disciples of Jesus experienced something figuratively in their mind and some may have indeed thought they saw Jesus. You cant know for sure unless you was there.
Watching something interesting at the moment on netflix titled the story of God with Morgan Freeman. If you havent already worth a watch but its leaving netflix soon. Academics feel the ideas for the Abrahamic faith's stemmed in part from Zorocrastism. A faith that believes in a divine creator and sees life as a battle between good v bad always going in your mind. Morgan Freeman also cites this as the faith he most ascribes to after having done the programme.
I have already provided proof of the disciple Peter, the first Pope. Peter did live and in Bible Peter 1 chapter 3 he writes :-
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead [b][/b] That is the proof.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I have already provided proof of the disciple Peter, the first Pope. Peter did live and in Bible Peter 1 chapter 3 he writes :-
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead [b][/b] That is the proof.
That is not prove DB but if you want to believe that is up to you.
One thing is certain if there is nothing after we die neither you nor I will be disappointed .
Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner. 68 Years following the Town
I have already provided proof of the disciple Peter, the first Pope. Peter did live and in Bible Peter 1 chapter 3 he writes :-
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead [b][/b] That is the proof.
Several years ago I read about a book by two Dutch authors which was entitled something like 'The Greatest Events of the 20th Century'. They didn't mention WW1 or WW2!!!
These events did happen, we all know that. Although these events affected the lives of most on the planet the authors didn't deem them to be great events.
We live in a world of instant communication, watch events as they happen. In the times of Jesus Christ, it was very, very different. The proof is sometimes hard to come by but the life of Peter, the first Pope, is recorded proof of his existence.
Today you either believe in Jesus or you don't. If you do great, if you don't then that is your choice and I am pleased for you and respect your choice.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
Proof is a funny word when considering religion, in this case, Christianity.
Whilst I think the whole thing is twaddle and a story that got terribly out of hand, the fundamental premise of being a good person, kind and conscientious and so forth isn’t exactly difficult to follow.
There are smatterings of proof regarding scripture, the people and even a possibility that a chap called Jesus or similar did roam the planet back then. We know that the bible is fundamentally and allegory, not be read as fact, more a guide, allegorical messages intended to help people have faith and provide life guidance.
I while back on one of my many occasions in Italy a local who had denounced Catholicism provided me a copy of a book/article that explored the idea that the Catholic Church has one of the largest research/archeological budgets in the world but uses little of it. Not because there’s nothing to explore but because there’s a risk that they uncover nothing or indeed proof it’s all fake...that ruins the religion and all those people who need faith lose it.
Like I say, places have proved that things do indeed support statements made in the bible.
My own interpretation is that it’s purely about personal belief and faith. 6/700 years ago religion helped control the masses, we have other ways of doing that now.
In post modern society, a society that is arguably more self aware, religion is primarily used to guide and offer solace. Faith and a sense of community in a somewhat community-less environment.
It’s a personal choice and should remain that way...I take the positives with actually feeling thr need to believe; it’s given us some amazing pieces of architecture...
'the poor and the needy are selfish and greedy'...well done Mozza
Several years ago I read about a book by two Dutch authors which was entitled something like 'The Greatest Events of the 20th Century'. They didn't mention WW1 or WW2!!!
These events did happen, we all know that. Although these events affected the lives of most on the planet the authors didn't deem them to be great events.
We live in a world of instant communication, watch events as they happen. In the times of Jesus Christ, it was very, very different. The proof is sometimes hard to come by but the life of Peter, the first Pope, is recorded proof of his existence.
Today you either believe in Jesus or you don't. If you do great, if you don't then that is your choice and I am pleased for you and respect your choice.
Come on DB you’re clutching at straws WW1 and WW2 is factually recorded with video evidence witnessed by millions of people around the world. Jesus resurrection was witnessed by his cult and lady of the night, it’s just pure fantasy, but I will echo Pete’s thoughts if that’s what you want to believe then carry on. I would love to read some religious stuff that could get me thinking.....just maybe! But the truth is it’s just medieval fairy tales designed at a time to keep the near primitive god fearing population in check.
Proof is a funny word when considering religion, in this case, Christianity.
There are smatterings of proof regarding scripture, the people and even a possibility that a chap called Jesus or similar did roam the planet back then. We know that the bible is fundamentally and allegory, not be read as fact, more a guide, allegorical messages intended to help people have faith and provide life guidance.
I while back on one of my many occasions in Italy a local who had denounced Catholicism provided me a copy of a book/article that explored the idea that the Catholic Church has one of the largest research/archeological budgets in the world but uses little of it. Not because there’s nothing to explore but because there’s a risk that they uncover nothing or indeed proof it’s all fake...that ruins the religion and all those people who need faith lose it.
Like I say, places have proved that things do indeed support statements made in the bible.
In post modern society, a society that is arguably more self aware, religion is primarily used to guide and offer solace. Faith and a sense of community in a somewhat community-less environment.
It’s a personal choice and should remain that way...I take the positives with actually feeling thr need to believe; it’s given us some amazing pieces of architecture...
In general I like your sentiment Aldi. For me I take a open minded view. Yes Iam a cradle Catholic and believe Jesus touched into the divine origins of this whole universe. As for the that book that denounced Catholicism thats all what it is. A book shaped by ideas of one person . For me the Catholic church is essentially something good but throughout history has deviated from the original teaching of Jesus of which its originally based on since the time of the first apostle Peter. Hopefully the current Pope can change this and clean it up which is what he is trying to do now and get back to the pure essence of Jesus's teachings which is to create a kingdom of God on this earth shaped by love and trying to do good.
I often look up at the night sky and see the stars and wonder at the vast nature of our ever expanding universe. In the grand scheme of things we are not even a pin sharp object in the ocean.
Often in my life the best people I have met have been religious from all walks of life .This stems from Catholic priests, to my Sikh Math teacher and to Muslim women who have shown me so much warmth carried by their faith in Allah.
Its why I have respect and love for all religions now. Growing up you change and are constantly adapting your views depending on how life shapes you.
For me the best religion comes from following ones heart and not trusting noone bar what you see with your own eyes.
Come on DB you’re clutching at straws WW1 and WW2 is factually recorded with video evidence witnessed by millions of people around the world. Jesus resurrection was witnessed by his cult and lady of the night, it’s just pure fantasy, but I will echo Pete’s thoughts if that’s what you want to believe then carry on. I would love to read some religious stuff that could get me thinking.....just maybe!
Brilliant article written on Jesus by Edward Kessler MBE who is the Founder Director of The Woolf Institute and a leading thinker in interfaith relations, primarily Jewish-Christian-Muslim Relations, and is a Fellow of St Edmund's College, Cambridge as well as a Principal of the Cambridge Theological Federation .Bit long but I think its worth a read if your interested like you seem to be.
By Ed Kessler One of the certain facts about Jesus was that he was a Jew. He was a child of Jewish parents, brought up in a Jewish home and reared among Jewish traditions. Throughout his life, Jesus lived among Jews and his followers were Jews.
No other Jew in history has rivalled Jesus in the magnitude of his influence. The words and deeds of Jesus the Jew have been, and are, an inspiration to countless millions of men and women. Strange, is it not, that Jews have given little attention to the life and teaching of this outstanding Jew? Yet, this is true because the Christian followers of Jesus came to cherish beliefs about his life that no Jew could hold. When the Church persecuted Jews in an effort to convert them, Jewish indifference to Jesus turned to hostility. It is a sad fact of history that the followers of this great Jew have brought much suffering upon the Jewish people, so that for centuries it was very hard for any Jew even to think of Jesus without difficulty. Up until recently, most Jews have chosen not to think of him at all. Now we are witnessing a significant change and although Jewish indifference to Jesus has not by any means disappeared, the signs are encouraging.
Jesus and his family would have been observant of Torah, paid tithes, kept the Sabbath, circumcised their males, attended synagogue, observed purity laws in relation to childbirth and menstruation, kept the dietary code - one could go on. While the Gospels record disputes about Jesus' interpretation of a few of these, the notion of a Christian Jesus, who did not live by Torah or only by its ethical values, does not fit historical reality.
There is no official Jewish view of Jesus but in one respect Jews are agreed in their attitude towards Jesus. Jews reject the tremendous claim, which is made for Jesus by his Christian followers - that Jesus is the Lord Christ, God Incarnate, the very Son of God the Father. On that belief, Jews and Christians must continue to respectfully differ. Jews believe that all share the divine spirit and are stamped with the divine image and no person - not even the greatest of all people - can possess the perfection of God. No one can be God's equal. Jesus lived his life not as a Christian but as a Jew, obedient (with very few exceptions) to Torah. Yet within a few years after his death, the Jewish followers of Jesus espoused a rather different kind of religion from that followed by most Jews. Judaism, like Islam after it, is strongly rooted in religious law; Christianity ceased to be so. Judaism, also like Islam, has a strong belief in the unity of God; Christianity came to place such great store in Jesus and subsequently in the doctrine of the Trinity that it has seemed to many other monotheists to be, in essence, a refined form of polytheism. Gradually, Christian religion came to look less like an authentic, even if eccentric, form of Judaism, and more like a completely different religion.
During the Second Temple period, there were many internal arguments about what it meant to be Jewish. Did religious law permit one to acquiesce in Roman occupation, or to fight it? How did the law reconcile justice and mercy? These must have been common debates, which one can see mirrored in the gospels' accounts of Jesus' disputes with contemporary religious leaders. We cannot be certain of Jesus' views, for the gospels are a highly interpretative genre of literature, coloured by their contributors' and editors' reflections on events that had happened 40 and more years before, in the light of the momentous events that had occurred in the intervening years. Even so, his attitude towards dietary laws recorded in Mark's gospel shows little interest in the minutiae of what they require that Jews eat and drink. This unusual interpretation eventually became common for Christians: certainly the food laws gradually became a thing of the past, as accounts in Acts and the Pauline letters illustrate. Moreover, although Jesus' message of the kingdom of God was clearly within mainstream Jewish tradition, the Christological references about him and his meaning are less so.
The belief that Jesus was God is an impossibility for Jewish thought. But not so the belief that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Several Jews have in the course of 2000 years, claimed to be the Messiah - sent by God to inaugurate God's kingdom on earth. Simon Bar Kochba in 132 CE and Shabbetai Zvi in 1665 CE are two examples among many. But the association of Messiah with terms like Son of Man and Son of God, which developed a profusion of meanings, soon led to exalted claims for Jesus that few Jews felt able to follow. Even within the New Testament this is so; by the time of the full-blown Trinitarianism of the 4th century creeds this gap was unbridgeably wide. Jesus was put to death by the Romans on the charge that he claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus made it clear to Peter that he regarded himself as the Messiah (Mark 8:29) as he did to the High Priest (Mark 14:62). Some Jews accepted Jesus as Messiah, believing that he would redeem them from the bitter yoke of Rome and bring the messianic age. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem he was acclaimed, "blessed is the Kingdom that comes, the kingdom of our father David" (Mark 11:10). Other Jews rejected the claim.
The charge against Jesus on the cross and his mockery as 'King of the Jews', his execution between two villains, the appearance of the royal messianic motifs - these all suggest that Pilate faced a man charged with sedition. Jesus was not crucified because he denied his Jewishness, abandoned the Scriptures, or disowned his people. He remained a Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, the Jew from Galilee and was executed for political rather than religious reasons.
To claim to be the Messiah, if it was an offence against Judaism at all, was certainly not (as the Gospels contend) an offence against Jewish law for which Jesus could have been put to death. The Gospels say that Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was blasphemy, but in Jewish law, blasphemy was to curse God using God's sacred name. Jesus did nothing of the sort. For Jews, history has shown that Jesus was not the long-awaited Messiah, for Jews were not delivered from the yoke of Roman bondage and the Golden Age did not come. However, some Jews have suggested that Jesus was following in the footsteps of the biblical prophets (cf. Mark 6:15, Matt 21:11). "What commandment is the first of all?" he was asked. Jesus answered as any Jew: "the first is: Hear O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is One. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might. The second is this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31). Every Jew will recognise in Jesus' answer the Shema, a Jewish declaration of faith, which is recited at every Jewish service, day and night. The famous command of Lev. 19:18 is also a fundamental precept of Judaism.
It was in his attitude towards the Torah that Jesus seems to have departed from the Judaism of his time. In their teaching, the rabbis would state, "thus says the Torah." Jesus showed independence by standing above the Torah and speaking as one "having authority". (Mark 1:22) He dared to base his teachings on "I say to you" and it was this daring which brought him into conflict with contemporary Judaism. It is highly improbable that Jesus told his followers to ignore the Torah; rather, he emphasized that "the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21) i.e., follow the deepest instinct for truth and love in your heart for therein, not through Torah, lies salvation. This was a courageous message; one which made some Jews unbounded in their devotion to him and others to regard him as a heretic. Geza Vermes and Ed Sanders are two scholars who in recent years have drawn wide attention among Christians to Jesus' Jewish origins, though Christians earlier in the 20th century (R. T. Herford, George Foot Moore) had also explored this trend, which has now become widespread and crucial within Jesus studies. At least until the 1970s, it was common for New Testament scholars to portray Jesus as a kind of prototype exponent of idealism. Many betrayed an instinctive antisemitism. They depicted Judaism at the time of Jesus as 'late Judaism' (Spätjudentum), as if Jewish religion had ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, or should have. This position was based on the conviction that post-exilic Judaism had ossified and betrayed the prophetic faith of Israel. It contends that Jesus stands outside such a hardened, legalistic religion, a stranger to it, condemning the scribes and the Pharisees who were the fathers of Rabbinic Judaism and who have thus misled modern Judaism into perpetuating this sterile, legalistic religion.
Jesus was a Jew, not an alien intruder in 1st-century Palestine. Whatever else he was, he was a reformer of Jewish beliefs, not an indiscriminate faultfinder of them. For Jews, the significance of Jesus must be in his life rather than his death, a life of faith in God. For Jews, not Jesus but God alone is Lord. Yet an increasing number of Jews are proud that Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew.
Rick and DB, I respect your faith but none of the ‘proofs’ you have offered is anything of the sort. You are doing more harm to Christianity than good by continuing to make these ill-advised claims.
When there is proof, actual proof, believe me, it will be the biggest news in history. Until then, keep your faith in the Lord but your powder dry.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
When there is proof, actual proof, believe me, it will be the biggest news in history. Until then, keep your faith in the Lord but your powder dry.
I can understand that though and Iam the same .I need evidence and have often wished more would be forthcoming from the divine aside from an one off event I had when young which gives me my faith. I have often wished more people would experience what I did.
Having gone deep on the issue from reading ,talking to others of differing faiths and direct personal experience is I genuinely think something divine did cause this universe to happen. All major religions touch on this and all believe that life is a battle between good v bad.
I can understand that though and Iam the same .I need evidence and have often wished more would be forthcoming from the divine aside from an one off event I had when young which gives me my faith. I have often wished more people would experience what I did.
I suppose and this will be my last message on the subject is my philosophy now after having gone deep on the issue from reading ,talking to others of differing faiths and direct personal experience is I genuinely think something divine did cause this universe to happen. All major religions touch on this and all believe that life is a battle between good v bad.
You do not need evidence, if you do will not get any, at what age did you stop believing in the tooth fairy? There was proof of them existing, the tooth disappeared and money miraculously turned up in it’s place. I have a relative with a university degree who absolutely believes in the myth of Adam and Eve as the first humans and doctors working for us who are completely rational until it comes to religion. We are quite happy to have national saint who is famous for killing a dragon is this more believable than a tooth fairy? If we had evidence there would be only one religion, people would rebel against what they saw as unfair about it and god would be smiting folk down right , left and centre to keep control. With evidence there is no need for faith which is the whole point of religion, it’s whole premise is the power of belief and control.
You do not need evidence, if you do will not get any, at what age did you stop believing in the tooth fairy? There was proof of them existing, the tooth disappeared and money miraculously turned up in it’s place. I have a relative with a university degree who absolutely believes in the myth of Adam and Eve as the first humans and doctors working for us who are completely rational until it comes to religion. We are quite happy to have national saint who is famous for killing a dragon is this more believable than a tooth fairy? If we had evidence there would be only one religion, people would rebel against what they saw as unfair about it and god would be smiting folk down right , left and centre to keep control. With evidence there is no need for faith which is the whole point of religion, it’s whole premise is the power of belief and control.
Nothing to do with the tooth fairy .Its to do with what was there before which gave rise to the big bang. For me that is God whilst others think its chance. As noted had I not seen what I had when young I would have been a agnostic so again I sympathise with your view.
As for Adam and Eve I think that's more of a symbolic story created by ancient man. We all evolved from Africa when nature was in balance. Humans came and some affected the natural delicate balance of it all through greed and power eg chopping down the rainforests, overfishing and so forth.
I think religion comes from one heart eg somehow tied to into good . I dont feel no religion has all the answers. Its why there are/have been different strands of religious thought all around the world since humans evolved culminating now in the main 5 which are Hinduism ,Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism .Its mans attempt to understand something that is essentially above all of us even science. Its why now I take something from all faiths as I think all have truths to them.
What has always baffled me is how easily people of faith will happily maim, kill, torture, rape and wage war. Not all of course, but I've always found it sickening what is perpetrated in the name of religion. My main customer I do work for is a devout Catholic and we had a conversation about veganism recently in which she said that animals were put on this earth by God for us to butcher and eat. I found this a very strange stance.
What has always baffled me is how easily people of faith will happily maim, kill, torture, rape and wage war. Not all of course, but I've always found it sickening what is perpetrated in the name of religion. My main customer I do work for is a devout Catholic and we had a conversation about veganism recently in which she said that animals were put on this earth by God for us to butcher and eat. I found this a very strange stance.
There’s a saying about this:
With atheism, bad people do bad things. With religion, good people do bad things.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
The OT is about Jesus Christ. Various religions have used Christianity for their own ends, usually power and money. After the first commandment, the second commandment from Jesus is to love your neighbour as yourself.
That my friends is where Christianity ends and religion has taken over, especially in today's world. Do we actually care about our neighbours especially during the covid outbreak?, or why is it when people go to the beach on hot days with no social distancing, attended mass demo's when all mass gatherings were banned? However some people did care, help the elderly with shopping, etc. and someone to talk to.
Just look at the C of E or the Catholics and you will find 2 of the wealthiest organisations going, both of which plead for more money. To help the poor and needy they say, so sell some gold. Both have elaborate golden crosses and both ignore the fact that when the Israelites in the desert started to pray to golden images it angered God.
Then you have the declining vicars in the C of E who have the same number of Bishops. A declining workforce but the same management structure. Papal wars etc. I could go and on about religion, but it's done in the name of Jesus Christ but not for what Jesus lived for, or the true meaning of Christianity.
Ginny, would you like to ask your customer why Pope's don't have a wife? She will answer, tradition, not done, and other reasons. Then ask her if the first Pope was St Peter, as in St Peters Ballistica. She will say yes. Then point out to her that in the book of Mark it is recorded that Jesus healed Peters Mother in law, so if the first Pope had a mother-in-law, then he must have had a wife. I have mentioned this to Catholics but they were not aware of it!
Then we have all those beautiful church buildings, by the thousand. Now I must point out that I have a love of old architecture and admiration for the builders to create such masterpieces.
However why do they spend millions on the upkeep. These buildings are not needed as the fall in congregations make them to large and heating and maintainance costs to high. Purpose built modern cathedrals/church buildings would be literally maintainance free and have proper insulation with reduced heating/electric costs. The old buildings could be handed over to English Heritage, National Trust and even have their use changed to musems, or homes in the case of some chapels and churches.
To some up, my feelings and beliefs are that if everyone tried to help our neighbours as taught by Jesus Christ, and NOT the teaching of various religions , then the world would be a better place. I have tried to show proof of Jesus existance using St Peter, taking Peters life backwards to the time he was with Jesus.
Life is full of choices so at the end of the day you either believe in Jesus Christ, including his teaching, or you don't.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Your comment about the Catholics who don’t realise that there were married priests before (I think) the 12th century, touches on the 3rd part of the first commandment. “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul and all thy mind.” In my experience that’s the bit that gets overlooked more often than the first two bits.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Nothing to do with the tooth fairy .Its to do with what was there before which gave rise to the big bang. For me that is God whilst others think its chance. As noted had I not seen what I had when young I would have been a agnostic so again I sympathise with your view.
As for Adam and Eve I think that's more of a symbolic story created by ancient man. We all evolved from Africa when nature was in balance. Humans came and some affected the natural delicate balance of it all through greed and power eg chopping down the rainforests, overfishing and so forth.
I think religion comes from one heart eg somehow tied to into good . I dont feel no religion has all the answers. Its why there are/have been different strands of religious thought all around the world since humans evolved culminating now in the main 5 which are Hinduism ,Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism .Its mans attempt to understand something that is essentially above all of us even science. Its why now I take something from all faiths as I think all have truths to them.
Peace and love to you Rick.
I accept that mankind more than likely evolved from Africa before over time spreading generation after generation right across the globe
What I don't understand so much is that the Americas were isolated for such a long long time until they were colonised by Europeans who brought over their religions with them
IF there is one omnipotent power then why didn't the indigenous populations of the Americas worship the same god(s) as those in the so called developed world?
If European and Middle Eastern civilisation hadn't developed as it did and then crossed the Atlantic in the middle ages, then would there be millions of people on the American continent who (had they not been discovered and educated to the settlers beliefs) would literally be living in ignorance of how folk on the other side of the world worship their god(s)?
I accept that mankind more than likely evolved from Africa before over time spreading generation after generation right across the globe
What I don't understand so much is that the Americas were isolated for such a long long time until they were colonised by Europeans who brought over their religions with them
IF there is one omnipotent power then why didn't the indigenous populations of the Americas worship the same god(s) as those in the so called developed world?
If European and Middle Eastern civilisation hadn't developed as it did and then crossed the Atlantic in the middle ages, then would there be millions of people on the American continent who (had they not been discovered and educated to the settlers beliefs) would literally be living in ignorance of how folk on the other side of the world worship their god(s)?
Some Native American tribes did believe in a creator though not all. Likwisewise there were other religions present in South America and notably one were animal sacrifice was used.
Morgan Freeman in his programme the story of God touched on this as well.Some of if not the earliest religions stemmed from the native American Indians where archaeologists found drawings in a cave depicting a high and low life similiar to the Christian/Islamic view of heaven and hell.
I accept that mankind more than likely evolved from Africa before over time spreading generation after generation right across the globe
What I don't understand so much is that the Americas were isolated for such a long long time until they were colonised by Europeans who brought over their religions with them
IF there is one omnipotent power then why didn't the indigenous populations of the Americas worship the same god(s) as those in the so called developed world?
If European and Middle Eastern civilisation hadn't developed as it did and then crossed the Atlantic in the middle ages, then would there be millions of people on the American continent who (had they not been discovered and educated to the settlers beliefs) would literally be living in ignorance of how folk on the other side of the world worship their god(s)?
And add in the fact that the Abrahamic faiths didn’t even become the dominant religions in Europe and the Middle East until the early Middle Ages, let alone all those Hindus, Buddhists, Animistic religions, Shintoism, etc in Asia, Africa, the Americas.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
In the olden days when people were generally ignorant of most things religion gave them hope and a bit of understanding on what the world was about.
When Jesus was born America had not been discovered and people not only thought the earth was flat but it was the centre of the universe.
It's a pity Jesus who must have known this did not say anything.
Maybe he did not know and was not the son of god.
It is fair to say that America was “discovered “ and inhabited for thousands of years before either Columbus or Christianity, it’s a bit of myth the Earth was thought of as flat by any with basic scientific knowledge
In the olden days when people were generally ignorant of most things religion gave them hope and a bit of understanding on what the world was about.
When Jesus was born America had not been discovered and people not only thought the earth was flat but it was the centre of the universe.
It's a pity Jesus who must have known this did not say anything.
Maybe he did not know and was not the son of God.
The situation is that as modern technology increases and inventiveness carries on, what happened in the past becomes even harder to understand and accept.
To put into perspective would anyone in the 1950s believe that you would be able to talk into a piece of plastic to somebody on the other side of the world!
Tell someone in the 1910s an aircraft would take off from a ship at over 500mph and land back on the ship!
In the war of the Roses, tell someone a canon would send a shell miles away and accurately destroy a target, every time!
It has hard for us to accept things that happened 1,000's of years ago, just as hard as it is for others in the future to accept what we do today.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
It is fair to say that America was “discovered “ and inhabited for thousands of years before either Columbus or Christianity, it’s a bit of myth the Earth was thought of as flat by any with basic scientific knowledge
Indeed. Didn’t one of those Ancient Greeks accurately calculate the size of the Earth as a sphere?
Columbus wouldn’t have set off on his first journey across the Atlantic if he’d thought the Earth was flat. He was trying to get to the East Indies by going west, so knew perfectly well that the Earth was round.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Depends how he thought it best to use his time. Advance knowledge and provide the base for improved technology, enabling people to intercourse the world up quicker, or teach people how to lead better lives? Not that people paid/pay that much attention to what he said/supposedly said anyway.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
i was brought up Catholic, but i must admit to wavering, too many inaccuracies. its hard to live a life as catholic, and not one i can do
You shouldn't worry about this. I don't belong to any denomination, just being a Christian is sufficient. From what I have witnessed, seen, and understood most denominations fall short in their ways. Many preach do as we say, and not have we do. Just believe.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
i was brought up Catholic, but i must admit to wavering, too many inaccuracies. its hard to live a life as catholic, and not one i can do
I'm not being facetious, but isn't one of the better elements of this religion ( the Catholic faith that is ) being able to confess and repent?
I don't know enough about it but is that because as the old saying goes " to err is human " so it allows some latitude for those who undoubtedly will struggle to keep on the straight and narrow?
One of my bezzies is a sinful man. And a staunch Catholic. Nothing major. But he knows he’ll be forgiven. He often tells me Protestants don’t have as much fun.
Clearly they’ve got the marketing strategy right.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
One of my bezzies is a sinful man. And a staunch Catholic. Nothing major. But he knows he’ll be forgiven. He often tells me Protestants don’t have as much fun.
Clearly they’ve got the marketing strategy right.
Jesus said ' Go and sin no more'
Catholics have their sins forgiven and then go out and commit the same or similar sin. Big differance!
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
You shouldn't worry about this. I don't belong to any denomination, just being a Christian is sufficient. From what I have witnessed, seen, and understood most denominations fall short in their ways. Many preach do as we say, and not have we do. Just believe.
So much to unpack in this thread... "Just Believe" Isn't possible when there's no evidence or logical reason to do so. Rational people understand this, irrational people rely on faith. Faith isn't a reliable path to truth which is important to most people.
The bible isn't a history book, at all. So many of the stories are literal parables or word of mouth tales that have clearly been embellished over the passing of time. Lots of it (especially in the OT) are hateful and downright evil! Follow the kill count in the OT. God murders literally everyone on the planet for not doing what they were already pre-destined by him to do. Nothing happens without god's say so after all right?!
The OT is *NOT* the story of Jesus, that would be the NT. So the question is, if the stories in the OT are fables and stories from an ignorant time told by people who didn't know where the sun went at night time, why hold any of it in any regard? And then, if you follow that line of thinking, what's the point of the NT and Jesus' story if the Adam & Eve tale isn't factually correct? If there's no fall, no original sin, there's no need for the crucifixion as penance for man's evildoing...
Follow the NT by all means, there's some good Hippy stuff in there, love thy neighbour, etc, but don't think for a second that the book is in any way historical.
The council of Nicea saw that the stories were ordered in such a way to keep people under the cosh of religious fear. Constantine saw the need for it as he was losing his grip.
So much to unpack in this thread... "Just Believe" Isn't possible when there's no evidence or logical reason to do so. Rational people understand this, irrational people rely on faith. Faith isn't a reliable path to truth which is important to most people.
The bible isn't a history book, at all. So many of the stories are literal parables or word of mouth tales that have clearly been embellished over the passing of time. Lots of it (especially in the OT) are hateful and downright evil! Follow the kill count in the OT. God murders literally everyone on the planet for not doing what they were already pre-destined by him to do. Nothing happens without god's say so after all right?!
The OT is *NOT* the story of Jesus, that would be the NT. So the question is, if the stories in the OT are fables and stories from an ignorant time told by people who didn't know where the sun went at night time, why hold any of it in any regard? And then, if you follow that line of thinking, what's the point of the NT and Jesus' story if the Adam & Eve tale isn't factually correct? If there's no fall, no original sin, there's no need for the crucifixion as penance for man's evildoing...
Follow the NT by all means, there's some good Hippy stuff in there, love thy neighbour, etc, but don't think for a second that the book is in any way historical.
The council of Nicea saw that the stories were ordered in such a way to keep people under the cosh of religious fear. Constantine saw the need for it as he was losing his grip.
Sufficient evidence has been shown that Jesus Christ did exist and was as recorded in the New Testament. So you only have to believe.
With regard to your comments about the Old Testament, you have to remember that this was written for the Israelites/Jews and not for us gentiles. Gentiles were only accepted by the Christian faith as being no different to them after the death of Jesus and recorded in 1 Peter. The same Peter who was the first Pope.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Sufficient evidence has been shown that Jesus Christ did exist and was as recorded in the New Testament. So you only have to believe.
With regard to your comments about the Old Testament, you have to remember that this was written for the Israelites/Jews and not for us gentiles. Gentiles were only accepted by the Christian faith as being no different to them after the death of Jesus and recorded in 1 Peter. The same Peter who was the first Pope.
I think what you and I call "sufficient evidence" are fundamentally different.
The OT and NT are simply collections of legends and hearsay. They have been granted some significance of interpretation that joins the beliefs of the time they were written with the time they were discovered and on to the time they are being read. So in 100 years the interpretations will have developed a new perspective through time and changing attitudes as well as likely new discoveries of more texts.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty."
Sufficient evidence has been shown that Jesus Christ did exist and was as recorded in the New Testament. So you only have to believe.
With regard to your comments about the Old Testament, you have to remember that this was written for the Israelites/Jews and not for us gentiles. Gentiles were only accepted by the Christian faith as being no different to them after the death of Jesus and recorded in 1 Peter. The same Peter who was the first Pope.
I think we started this thread debating this. There simply is no evidence that Jesus lived. If you can point me to one authenticated contemporaneous document that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth (the Gospels not being contemporaneous) I’ll buy you a season ticket.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Is Jesus alive today and on this site? Some people on the football thread must have seen Louis Boyd playing at Exeter with a rating of 5 and Oldham with a rating of 6.6.
Given that he neither played nor was a sub, at both games then the ratings must have come from a heavenly body.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Is Jesus alive today and on this site? Some people on the football thread must have seen Louis Boyd playing at Exeter with a rating of 5 and Oldham with a rating of 6.6.
Given that he neither played nor was a sub, at both games then the ratings must have come from a heavenly body.
You've perfectly framed the retort to the question of the gospels authenticity. Is it more likely that Jesus lived & did the things claimed and was risen after he died or is it more likely that the stories were either a mistake or simply exaggerated over time? Without contemporaneous, independent verification, it's more likely that the rules of the universe weren't suspended for that 1 man, but the stories were either lies, exaggerated or a mistake. The Bible isn't evidence for the Bible's claims. That's circular logic which isn't evidence.
You've perfectly framed the retort to the question of the gospels authenticity. Is it more likely that Jesus lived & did the things claimed and was risen after he died or is it more likely that the stories were either a mistake or simply exaggerated over time? Without contemporaneous, independent verification, it's more likely that the rules of the universe weren't suspended for that 1 man, but the stories were either lies, exaggerated or a mistake. The Bible isn't evidence for the Bible's claims. That's circular logic which isn't evidence.
My Louis Boyd post tongue in cheek as if you didn't know!
So what's your take on the person who Catholics describe as the first Pope St Peter?
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Also, taken from Wiki... "Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors." Soooo. There's that.
Also, taken from Wiki... "Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors." Soooo. There's that.
Looks like your doing the deflecting! I did ask you what your opinion was and not what some guys on Wiki thought.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Looks like your doing the deflecting! I did ask you what your opinion was and not what some guys on Wiki thought.
I didn't have an opinion, so to gain some information, I did some research and found that the overwhelming consensus was the above. That's how rational people gain knowledge, not from just one book of fairy tales. So once again, can you answer my question without deflecting for a third time?
I didn't have an opinion, so to gain some information, I did some research and found that the overwhelming consensus was the above. That's how rational people gain knowledge, not from just one book of fairy tales. So once again, can you answer my question without deflecting for a third time?
To answer your question there are about 2.4 billion Christians in the world, just over 31% of the population of the world which is about 7.5 billion people (source Wiki).
Now I don't expect all to believe in Jesus Christ but 2.4 billion people surely cannot be wrong.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
To answer your question there are about 2.4 billion Christians in the world, just over 31% of the population of the world which is about 7.5 billion people (source Wiki).
Now I don't expect all to believe in Jesus Christ but 2.4 billion people surely cannot be wrong.
To answer your question there are about 2.4 billion Christians in the world, just over 31% of the population of the world which is about 7.5 billion people (source Wiki).
Now I don't expect all to believe in Jesus Christ but 2.4 billion people surely cannot be wrong.
By that evidence 5.1 billion people are not Christians, so yes. 2.4 billion people can be wrong. By the same logic 5.1 billion people can’t be wrong.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
To answer your question there are about 2.4 billion Christians in the world, just over 31% of the population of the world which is about 7.5 billion people (source Wiki).
Now I don't expect all to believe in Jesus Christ but 2.4 billion people surely cannot be wrong.
That isn't answering the question I posed you in the slightest, and simply shows the backwards logic religions rely on! As has already been pointed out, there are far FAR more non Christians than Christians, so by *YOUR OWN LOGIC* they cannot be wrong. You've again tried to deflect so this will be my last post replying to you as, like every other Christian I've ever talked to, when they get a question they can't answer, they revert to type and deflect. Because they know they have no answers that make any sense.
That isn't answering the question I posed you in the slightest, and simply shows the backwards logic religions rely on! As has already been pointed out, there are far FAR more non Christians than Christians, so by *YOUR OWN LOGIC* they cannot be wrong. You've again tried to deflect so this will be my last post replying to you as, like every other Christian I've ever talked to, when they get a question they can't answer, they revert to type and deflect. Because they know they have no answers that make any sense.
You were the one looking to Wiki for answers, just thought I'd help you.
Islam has nearly 2 billion believers, nearly 25% of the world's population, who also believe in Jesus Christ. Together with those of the Christian faith that's over 50% of the world's population.
These figures are not a deflection, but the truth in his life.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
To answer your question there are about 2.4 billion Christians in the world, just over 31% of the population of the world which is about 7.5 billion people (source Wiki).
Now I don't expect all to believe in Jesus Christ but 2.4 billion people surely cannot be wrong.
Coldplay have sold over 80m albums. Yes, the masses can be wrong.
You were the one looking to Wiki for answers, just thought I'd help you.
Islam has nearly 2 billion believers, nearly 25% of the world's population, who also believe in Jesus Christ. Together with those of the Christian faith that's over 50% of the world's population.
These figures are not a deflection, but the truth in his life.
How many of them of that 50% even think of Jesus every day, never mind pray to him or some other religious act? There's probably more Man Utd fans in this country than there are practising Christians.
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
Josephus made reference to Jesus in 2 of his books:-
The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."
Also the Roman historian did the same Tacitus did the same:-
How many of them of that 50% even think of Jesus every day, never mind pray to him or some other religious act? There's probably more Man Utd fans in this country than there are practising Christians.
This is why I don't belong to any Christian organisation.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Josephus made reference to Jesus in 2 of his books:-
The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."
Also the Roman historian did the same Tacitus did the same:-
Once again, for clarity. Is it more likely that Jesus lived & did the things claimed and was risen after he died or is it more likely that the stories were either a mistake or simply exaggerated over time? Without contemporaneous, independent verification, it's more likely that the rules of the universe weren't suspended for that 1 man, but the stories were either lies, exaggerated or a mistake?
Is it more likely that Jesus lived & did the things claimed and was risen after he died or is it more likely that the stories were either a mistake or simply exaggerated over time? Without contemporaneous, independent verification, it's more likely that the rules of the universe weren't suspended for that 1 man, but the stories were either lies, exaggerated or a mistake?
It is more likely that Jesus lived & did the things claimed and was risen after he died.
Well I suppose I should be thankful I got a straight answer, at long last, even though it's either a delusional one or a flat out lie.
So let me get it straight....
In your head, it's more likely than not that a man 2000 years ago turned water into wine, healed lepers, healed a paralysed servant, healed a blokes withered hand, calms the sea during a storm, fed 5000 people with 5 loaves & 3 fish, walked on water, raised people (including himself from the grave, caused a man's ear to grow back.
All of this is more likely to have happened than these things were stories of someone (as remarkable a person as that may have been) which were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth (illiteracy was prevalent then, remember) then written down decades if not hundreds of years after the alleged events, then copied, and translated, and copied again and translated again and copied again. Rather than any of these stories being embellished, changed, exaggerated or flat out just made up, you're saying it's MORE LIKELY that they're actually true stories about Jesus....?
Well I suppose I should be thankful I got a straight answer, at long last, even though it's either a delusional one or a flat out lie.
So let me get it straight....
In your head, it's more likely than not that a man 2000 years ago turned water into wine, healed lepers, healed a paralysed servant, healed a blokes withered hand, calms the sea during a storm, fed 5000 people with 5 loaves & 3 fish, walked on water, raised people (including himself from the grave, caused a man's ear to grow back.
Always wondered why the mighty Roman emperor Tiberius would want to kill such a magical man, he’d of been shipped of to Rome in no time. No disrespect to those of faith but logically thinking the Jesus story are pure fantasy it’s that simple.
Always wondered why the mighty Roman emperor Tiberius would want to kill such a magical man, he’d of been shipped of to Rome in no time. No disrespect to those of faith but logically thinking the Jesus story are pure fantasy it’s that simple.
You know that, I know that, the rational world around us realises that, but these religious types cling on to such ridiculous beliefs. It's both sad and terrifying that today, in an age where we've made flying machines on another planet, there are still people around who think a bronze aged goat herder is going to come back and murder everyone who doesn't believe he was here first time...... Imagine how far we could be technologically today if it weren't for the religious doctrine of the dark ages.
Well I suppose I should be thankful I got a straight answer, at long last, even though it's either a delusional one or a flat out lie.
So let me get it straight....
In your head, it's more likely than not that a man 2000 years ago turned water into wine, healed lepers, healed a paralysed servant, healed a blokes withered hand, calms the sea during a storm, fed 5000 people with 5 loaves & 3 fish, walked on water, raised people (including himself from the grave, caused a man's ear to grow back.
All of this is more likely to have happened than these things were stories of someone (as remarkable a person as that may have been) which were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth (illiteracy was prevalent then, remember) then written down decades if not hundreds of years after the alleged events, then copied, and translated, and copied again and translated again and copied again. Rather than any of these stories being embellished, changed, exaggerated or flat out just made up, you're saying it's MORE LIKELY that they're actually true stories about Jesus....?
Are you deluded or lying?
Neither
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Always wondered why the mighty Roman emperor Tiberius would want to kill such a magical man, he’d of been shipped of to Rome in no time. No disrespect to those of faith but logically thinking the Jesus story is pure fantasy it’s that simple.
Can you imagine in 2,000 years' time somebody reads about a young Austrian who had millions of fellow human beings killed, murdered, and want to have their race exterminated? They'd say it was ridiculous, nobody would do that to fellow humans. Hitler did!
Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen. Likewise, those in the future are not living in our time. Today we have more sophisticated means of recording events than pen and paper.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Can you imagine in 2,000 years' time somebody reads about a young Austrian who had millions of fellow human beings killed, murdered, and want to have their race exterminated? They'd say it was ridiculous, nobody would do that to fellow humans. Hitler did!
Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen. Likewise, those in the future are not living in our time. Today we have more sophisticated means of recording events than pen and paper.
Your scraping an empty barrel with that analogy DB! Genocides have been part of the human timeline going all the way back to the Neanderthal days. Again no disrespect but I’m genuinely intrigued as to why you cannot look at the life of the Jesus story from a scientific point of view as well as your own emotional views? you’re explanation ...”Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen” is quite a cop out!
We can talk about jonah and the whale, Noah’s Ark, Samson’s magical hair FFS! Story’s like these are pure make believe! scientifically impossible surly you understand this without needing to be there? And in the same context much of the Jesus’s Wizardly magic is much the same ...impossible.
Your scraping an empty barrel with that analogy DB! Genocides have been part of the human timeline going all the way back to the Neanderthal days. Again no disrespect but I’m genuinely intrigued as to why you cannot look at the life of the Jesus story from a scientific point of view as well as your own emotional views? you’re explanation ...”Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen” is quite a cop out!
We can talk about jonah and the whale, Noah’s Ark, Samson’s magical hair FFS! Story’s like these are pure make believe! scientifically impossible surly you understand this without needing to be there? And in the same context much of the Jesus’s Wizardly magic is much the same ...impossible.
Which book of their day are these recorded in?
With regard to the Old Testament, it was written for the Israelites and Jews of that time. The life of Jesus started after that.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Can you imagine in 2,000 years' time somebody reads about a young Austrian who had millions of fellow human beings killed, murdered, and want to have their race exterminated? They'd say it was ridiculous, nobody would do that to fellow humans. Hitler did!
Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen. Likewise, those in the future are not living in our time. Today we have more sophisticated means of recording events than pen and paper.
Terrible analogy.
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.” Bill Shankly
Can you imagine in 2,000 years' time somebody reads about a young Austrian who had millions of fellow human beings killed, murdered, and want to have their race exterminated? They'd say it was ridiculous, nobody would do that to fellow humans. Hitler did!
Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen. Likewise, those in the future are not living in our time. Today we have more sophisticated means of recording events than pen and paper.
And they'd find contemporaneous accounts of these events happening from many, many different sources all converging on the same version of the story. The polar opposite of the claim you are making is true! I'll take deluded, not a liar.
You know that, I know that, the rational world around us realises that, but these religious types cling on to such ridiculous beliefs. It's both sad and terrifying that today, in an age where we've made flying machines on another planet, there are still people around who think a bronze aged goat herder is going to come back and murder everyone who doesn't believe he was here first time...... Imagine how far we could be technologically today if it weren't for the religious doctrine of the dark ages.
It's pretty pathetic.
Felt the need to chip in here with regards to DB constant defending of the christian faith. Jesus was someone who represented love which is something that is acutely missing in quite a few peoples lives which leads many to despair,drugs, alcohol and even suicide. A book which always springs to mind is Cupcakes Brown a piece of cake. Horrendous background and experiences. Almost at deaths door living homeless and high on drugs it was her faith in God which saved her. She now is a successful lawyer There has been other high profile cases where Jesus has put others including famous boxers Manny Pacquaio, Tyson Fury and Nigel Benn on the straight path and not to forget the celebrities who are staunch Christians that have done so much good in their society's notably Denzel Washington who often preaches through his films.
I agree with you to a point that the resurrection is something that is hard to comprehend. I personally struggle with it but for others its faith that allows them to have that belief .
I think I said at the very start of this, believe what makes you happy, I've no issues with that, but don't be telling anyone else how to think. And with regards those who have found Jesus and put their lives on track, I couldn't be happier for them. Using anything as a crutch isn't necessarily a bad thing, and like I said, a lot of the Jesus stuff is just hippy "love thy neighbour" stuff which is fine. The issues start to become provocative when they're taken literally ahead of trusted and factual science. Like I said, believe what you like, but have reasons for it. Reasonable people don't need faith to believe in something. Faith is the excuse people use when they have no real reason to.
I think Biccys what will make most believe in the resurrection of Jesus is if he appears again as some seem to think including Catholic priests who sacrifice the most out of all the religious groups.
In fairness to staunch defenders of the Christian faith it's a very moving experience to be inside the supposed tomb of Jesus in the church of the holy selpulchre in Israel. I've been there myself and it was one of the most moving experiences of my life.
I think Biccys what will make most believe in the resurrection of Jesus is if he appears again as some seem to think including Catholic priests who sacrifice the most out of all the religious groups.
In fairness to staunch defenders of the Christian faith it's a very moving experience to be inside the supposed tomb of Jesus in the church of the holy selpulchre in Israel. I've been there myself and it was one of the most moving experiences of my life.
Oh I totally agree! I'm sure the staunchest of atheists would then be compelled to believe. Because then there'd be no faith required. The trouble is, according to revelation, we'll all be killed. Peace, love & harmony and all that....! I don't doubt the feelings a believer would get going to the alleged tomb, but that feeling is based on myth. If someone who doesn't know the story they wouldn't get the feeling... I've seen the alleged burning Bush and the well of Moses in St Catherine's monastery in Sinai. It's just a big old Bush and a hole in the ground to me.
Oh I totally agree! I'm sure the staunchest of atheists would then be compelled to believe. Because then there'd be no faith required. The trouble is, according to revelation, we'll all be killed. Peace, love & harmony and all that....! I don't doubt the feelings a believer would get going to the alleged tomb, but that feeling is based on myth. If someone who doesn't know the story they wouldn't get the feeling... I've seen the alleged burning Bush and the well of Moses in St Catherine's monastery in Sinai. It's just a big old Bush and a hole in the ground to me.
Either way as noted before earlier in this thread the disciples of Jesus were prepared to die in horrendous circumstances for Jesus so his message must of carried a lot of weight and impacted on those who saw him face to face.
Your right in that yes there is some believers bias in holy places similar to that all around the globe be it Mecca or in a Sikh temple. Either way whenever I stand in nature away it from it all in the Scottish Highlands or the Welsh valleys to the Maldives places where I've been I can't help but wonder at the beauty of it all and believe that there is something more to this universe than our minds will ever fathom.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Either way as noted before earlier in this thread the disciples of Jesus were prepared to die in horrendous circumstances for Jesus so his message must of carried a lot of weight and impacted on those who saw him face to face.
Your right in that yes there is some believers bias in holy places similar to that all around the globe be it Mecca or in a Sikh temple. Either way whenever I stand in nature away it from it all in the Scottish Highlands or the Welsh valleys to the Maldives places where I've been I can't help but wonder at the beauty of it all and believe that there is something more to this universe than our minds will ever fathom.
But to me, the beauty of nature is even more awe inspiring because it occurred naturally and isn't designed. An awful lot of it would be called terrible design if it were! Lots of atheist debaters point to the laryngeal nerve in giraffes taking the long way round (which shows evolution in action beautifully!) but there's other things such as susceptibility to disease and sickness that show we aren't designed. And also, these disciple geezers... The likelihood of them existing is questionable as well. They couldn't even agree to something as important as Jesus' final words on the cross, so what chance the rest of their tales being true...?
Actually Biccys, eyewitnesses are notorious for giving different accounts of the same event even when they’re being scrupulously honest.
But I agree. There’s no evidence for the Disciples or their executions.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
We all have a choice of what we believe and that is our personal choice, whether it be about Jesus Christ or any other subject. The fact that it is our choice, mine or yours, should be respected by everyone else.
Freedom of speech is what choice is all about like this thread was started because someone suggested it on another thread, and was not started to convert people into Christianity. It was not started to be controversial but as a way of showing support and belief, my belief, in the ways of Jesus Christ. Not the ways of others who have high jacked Christianity, over the years, for their own purposes.
I do respect the views of Biccys, Kingston, and others about Jesus Christ because this is their view. There are also other times when all our views are the same and we are in harmony with each other. I once had a discussion with a Swami, I pointed out to him that I did not agree with him but respected him for his views and he should do the same. His answer was he couldn't do that because he, in his opinion was right, and I was wrong.
At that very point in time, I realised how wars break out. He was a bigot without any compromise. I mention this because without respect for other people's choices anarchy can break out. We see this many times in our lives today with instant tv news.
It is choice that we all have, in all aspects of our lives, and we should not enforce our choice on others. To ask others to explain their choice so that we may comprehend it, or not, yes. But to pursue the comprehension once you've decided not to accept it, no.
'And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus' – Philippians 4:7
May you all have peace in your hearts and minds regardless of your choices in the world.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Evidence of the disciples is the church we see today and for many whose faith in Jesus has healed broken lives. You want hard facts and I understand that but unless you go back in time or Jesus comes again I cant convince you. Same goes for other figures of antiquity. I think a excellent book that I read that may offer some clarification on the matter is "the early church in her own words by Rod Bennett". The book gives non biblical ancient sources for the Jesus movement. Of interest as well archaeologists are finding things in the holy land which concur within reason what happened in the bible eg places mentioned etc.
And also, these disciple geezers... The likelihood of them existing is questionable as well. They couldn't even agree to something as important as Jesus' final words on the cross, so what chance the rest of their tales being true...?
The main thread though is all agree that Jesus stood for something good albeit with differing interpretations. The issue here is the gospels as you said were a later redaction of what went on written years after. The gospel of John for instance was more of a theological bias on what Jesus was .
But to me, the beauty of nature is even more awe inspiring because it occurred naturally and isn't designed. An awful lot of it would be called terrible design if it were! Lots of atheist debaters point to the laryngeal nerve in giraffes taking the long way round (which shows evolution in action beautifully!) but there's other things such as susceptibility to disease and sickness that show we aren't designed. ?
I agree to a point and Iam a deep lover of science as well. I think the sickness and disease aspect taken to the extreme shows that some humans are not meant to be here long and sometimes its better for doctors to let that person die as its about the quality of life rather that the quantity .Indeed I know better than anyone having witnessed a very close friend die in agony aged only 19.
I think if you take it all back before a lot of the main religions developed and humans had started colonizing the planet nature was in balance .There are groups of humans still alive today who still live predominantly like that eg Amazon tribes . Their philosophy is one of living in harmony with nature and only taking what we need resource wise. Hence loving our planet is at the heart of their philosophy . This is again mirrored by later influential leaders eg Abraham the patriarch of the Jews , Jesus and Guru Nanak the founder of the Sikh faith. Love is something which science concurs with as well as without it human brains will not develop. For me therein is the answer to everything.
Can you imagine in 2,000 years' time somebody reads about a young Austrian who had millions of fellow human beings killed, murdered, and want to have their race exterminated? They'd say it was ridiculous, nobody would do that to fellow humans. Hitler did!
Because we are not there at the time it does not mean that it did not happen. Likewise, those in the future are not living in our time. Today we have more sophisticated means of recording events than pen and paper.
I’d say the video evidence and physical evidence of places like Auschwitz are fairly compelling arguments that it did happen. Yet to see a video of Jesus though.
I’d say the video evidence and physical evidence of places like Auschwitz are fairly compelling arguments that it did happen. Yet to see a video of Jesus though.
Thank you for making my point, again. The best records of the days of Jesus are by pen and paper, no videos, no email, no cameras, and no social media apart from word of mouth. They recorded the truth of Jesus the best and only way they could.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I find this topic quite interesting but have to say as a non-believer I could never buy in to the blind faith that some folk have
As a kid I went to Sunday school religiously ( excuse the pun ) and from an early age I was well into the old Ladybird story books about "Daniel in the Lions Den" and the old man who was cured of his ills etc
Palm Sunday at church was always a time of celebration at the start of Holy Week and until my early teens that was my "reality"
I had no reason to disbelieve any of what I'd been told.... why would I?
My mum used to take me to the cinema to see the likes of "The greatest story ever told" and Ben Hur which kind of reinforced what I'd been taught at church every Sunday and for a while after we moved from Cleethorpes to Grimsby I was in two choirs ( St Aidans and St Hughs )
When I got to senior school though something changed in me.... so many things just didn't ring true and I started to question so much more about life and how unfair it is and once that happened my "faith" was over and done with
In some ways I admire those that do believe in a religion.... they see the good in it but sadly all I see is something divisive a lot of the time
I like to think I'm a tolerant kind of person and while that could be just my nature maybe it was being nurtured in my early years that gave me the right kind of outlook. As an adult though I don't need anything to justify my admiration of the natural world. I really do think it's all been random and not by design
Anyway I'll carry on following how this thread develops.... a kind of live and let live approach to everyone's viewpoints is what works best for me. Peace out!
Thank you for making my point, again. The best records of the days of Jesus are by pen and paper, no videos, no email, no cameras, and no social media apart from word of mouth. They recorded the truth of Jesus the best and only way they could.
But it's not making your point again is it? You said people would "read" about the holocaust and find it hard to believe. Firstly, the holocaust is a lot more believable than a man returning from the dead or literally walking on water or turning water into wine. Secondly, the point I was illustrating is that anyone can write something, doesn't make it true without other accounts or evidence to back it up. I could write I've got a 12 inch c0ck but doesn't stop the reality being that I've got a thrincher. Whereas the Holocaust has overwhelming evidence that it did happen, whereas the New testament has a few "first hand" accounts that were more likely written several decades, if not centuries, after the events allegedly happened.
One persons movement can be a million followers who 'believe' it. The trouble is - is that a belief is not a truth. The best way is your own way, eacking out truth wherever you can and acting in accordance with what you find and living the best way that you can?
'I walked in the dressing room. The window was open and I thought that a sea fret had got in. Then I saw smoke billowing from a pipe in the corner of the room...it was my centre-forward. He looked seven stone wet through. He went on to score thirty-odd goals that season.' Lawrie McMenemy on encountering the legend that was Matt Tees.
One persons movement can be a million followers who 'believe' it. The trouble is - is that a belief is not a truth. The best way is your own way, eacking out truth wherever you can and acting in accordance with what you find and living the best way that you can?
Christians would lay claim to that though. “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if some Greek philosopher (Plato?) or Zoroaster came out with something like that. Any classicists in?
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Christians would lay claim to that though. “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if some Greek philosopher (Plato?) or Zoroaster came out with something like that. Any classicists in?
Mark 12 v 31
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I prefer the thee-ing and thou-ing of the King James Bible DB
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Now that would be something! A Bible written in Yorkie.
Lerrim who is wi’yowt sin cast t’first storne
Foller me an I will make thee fishers of men. But not in a gair wair. We don’t want any bloody poufs round ere!
Dad! Dad! Why hast tha left me!
Blessed are’t’careful for they shall ave brass in pocket
Eee! Look at Jesus walking on t’watter
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
This maybe should be on by the music thread, but it’s one dedicated to DB and Rick. RRFC would probably argue it’s not the best version, but it’s one from my early adulthood so I’m having it.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
This maybe should be on by the music thread, but it’s one dedicated to DB and Rick. RRFC would probably argue it’s not the best version, but it’s one from my early adulthood so I’m having it.
Listened to the song Kingston and again whilst understanding your view on religion( needing hard facts ,as you know I use to be the same) I thought the song was ok but it didnt grab me.
Yes DB I liked that Johnny Cash song .Made me feel better 🙂
I posted it up before in another thread but Stromzys song grabbed me from the outset,especially the lyrics and everything about it even the video.Christians ,Muslims all having faith and uniting. The quote below by the best boxing heavyweight in the world ever sums up it for me:
We all have the same God, we just serve him differently. Rivers, lakes, ponds, streams, oceans all have different names, but they all contain water. So do religions have different names, and they all contain truth, expressed in different ways forms and times. It doesn't matter whether you're a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. When you believe in God, you should believe that all people are part of one family. If you love God, you can't love only some of his children.
Listened to the song Kingston and again whilst understanding your view on religion( needing hard facts ,as you know I use to be the same) I thought the song was ok but it didnt grab me.
Yes DB I liked that Johnny Cash song .Made me feel better 🙂
I posted it up before in another thread but Stromzys song grabbed me from the outset,especially the lyrics and everything about it even the video.Christians ,Muslims all having faith and uniting. The quote below by the best boxing heavyweight in the world ever sums up it for me:
We all have the same God, we just serve him differently. Rivers, lakes, ponds, streams, oceans all have different names, but they all contain water. So do religions have different names, and they all contain truth, expressed in different ways forms and times. It doesn't matter whether you're a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. When you believe in God, you should believe that all people are part of one family. If you love God, you can't love only some of his children.
Muhammad Ali
Firing rockets at each other. Not much love there.
Firing rockets at each other. Not much love there.
Goes back to a group thing though and not what religion is truly about . Hinduism as I seem to gather is the oldest of the worlds mains religions. I think wherever there is humans religion or no religion there is always going to be strife. Religious groups like football clubs give a sense of belonging and if followed properly causes no problems.
The problem is the Israelis are basing their claim to Palestine on their religion. Their religion tells them that that land was promised to them by God. Apparently same god as the Christians and Muslims that they are oppressing. As far as they are concerned they are doing God’s work. How do you square that?
Christians do the opposite and often ignore their founder’s exhortations. If churches followed Jesus’ teachings they would be advocating forms of socialism.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
The problem is the Israelis are basing their claim to Palestine on their religion. Their religion tells them that that land was promised to them by God. Apparently same god as the Christians and Muslims that they are oppressing. As far as they are concerned they are doing God’s work. How do you square that?
Christians do the opposite and often ignore their founder’s exhortations. If churches followed Jesus’ teachings they would be advocating forms of socialism.
As I have posted many times there is not a problem with Christianity. The problem is the same one over the years which is people/cults/religions and nations have hijacked Christianity for their own cause.
Christianity is not about power, greed, and money but love compassion, and help for each other. If you look at the countries that back Israel and the Palestinians you will find power, greed, and money behind it. Not Christianity.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
As I have posted many times there is not a problem with Christianity. The problem is the same one over the years which is people/cults/religions and nations have hijacked Christianity for their own cause.
Christianity is not about power, greed, and money but love compassion, and help for each other. If you look at the countries that back Israel and the Palestinians you will find power, greed, and money behind it. Not Christianity.
I agree with that. The problem is with the churches. They have backed power over the centuries, and are often part of the establishment, and promote toxic interpretations like those Bible bashers in America. They all seem to forget the example of Jesus and the money lenders. And the camel and the eye of the needle.
Jews need to abandon this Promised Land thing too. It’s at the heart of the trouble in Palestine. It is pure injustice based on religion.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
I agree with that. The problem is with the churches. They have backed power over the centuries, and are often part of the establishment, and promote toxic interpretations like those Bible bashers in America. They all seem to forget the example of Jesus and the money lenders. And the camel and the eye of the needle.
Jews need to abandon this Promised Land thing too. It’s at the heart of the trouble in Palestine. It is pure injustice based on religion.
I agree with most of what you've said, but I don't think Jews need to abandon the promised land. It is part of their history and culture and needs providing for. There is also a need for the Kurds, Basques, etc. and then the Balkans war highlighted the situation.
As I have posted before I did have a brief conversation with an extremist Hindu spiritual leader so I can see how these problems begin and manifest when the 2 parties will not compromise. Perhaps a relocation for the Palestinians to a new area, say to the northern end of the Gulf of Aquba.
Israel, Egypt, and Jordon could all give up land to form a new country for the Palestinians, as well as Gaza. There are 3 new airports in the area, all of which could be part of the new country and they could be financed by the Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Iran, other Arab states, and the USA. The money would come from the savings of money spent on the war by most of these countries under different guises.
Just a thought.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Hold on. The Basques and Kurds haven’t been squeezed out of their homeland, so they’re different cases. Straightforward self-determination, though there will be areas that have mixed populations. Israel has moved people out of their homeland. Why should the Palestinians be the ones to move? Past injustices against the Jews do not excuse that. Why not clear Lincolnshire of people so the Jews can have a homeland? Why not Vermont? Or Kaliningrad? The reason is because of their religion. They were ‘promised’ it by God.
In your solution, Israel won’t give up any land. It’s constantly grabbing more. Imaginative use of money. Swords into ploughshares- I like it.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
The problem is the Israelis are basing their claim to Palestine on their religion. Their religion tells them that that land was promised to them by God. Apparently same god as the Christians and Muslims that they are oppressing. As far as they are concerned they are doing God’s work. How do you square that?
Christians do the opposite and often ignore their founder’s exhortations. If churches followed Jesus’ teachings they would be advocating forms of socialism.
Good points raised. I think for the first God never promised the land of Israel to Abraham if he followed Gods ways .This was more Abrahams attempt to understand something that was essentially beyond him and I feel a figment of his own deep consciousness . Prophet Muhammad later interpreted Abrahams and the Christian message which followed it and refined it according to his own beliefs. Again coming from his own consciousness which I believe the Quran came from.
Jesus as noted earlier in this thread by that article Edward Kessler captures what Jesus was brilliantly. Someone who tried to refine Abrahams message even more so.
At this present moment until Jesus supposedly comes again I like the Sikh view though take a refined view of it. Whilst not believing in reincarnation I think there is a goodness in all of us even the most evil (even if its 0.000001 %). We have to work on the good in ourselves and try to eliminate the bad which can be a arduous process especially for those who have had it more difficult than most eg abused,neglected etc in early years and carry a lot of hate and anger in them against their abusers. All that anger does is destroy us.
Are you saying that in your opinion Abraham misinterpreted God or that the Jewish faith believes that Abraham misinterpreted it?
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Are you saying that in your opinion Abraham misinterpreted God
Yes as I think God doesnt speak to anyone verbally . Abraham tried to touch on something which as noted something which is essentially beyond all of us even science. I take it right back to before the big bang. That instant explosion which gave rise to the ever expanding universe we see today.
But that still leaves the Jewish religion telling Jews they have a God given right to Palestine. Abraham misinterpreted God and everyone else who followed him, through Moses and the Prophets.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
But that still leaves the Jewish religion telling Jews they have a God given right to Palestine. Abraham misinterpreted God and everyone else who followed him, through Moses and the Prophets.
Needs amending Kingston and a re-examination of consciousness. Sadly I see things are to embedded now in history for things to change.
Needs amending Kingston and a re-examination of consciousness. Sadly I see things are to embedded now in history for things to change.
What needs amending? The Jewish doctrine of the Promised Land?
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
What needs amending? The Jewish doctrine of the Promised Land?
Yes. If all the main religions just focused on some aspect of their dogmas and unite as one collective group eg love we wouldn't have any problems in the world today amongst these differing religious factions. As noted for this to happen it would need something dramatic to happen eg Jesus returning or God appearing in some degree eg a divine light from heaven coming down which all humanity can see twenty fours a day 7 days a week. Far fetched I know but for some that's what would be needed to believe .
But haven’t we been given free will so we can determine our own future? Waiting for the second coming is like giving up. Isn’t the onus on good people to come together and act, no matter how difficult the task is?
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
But haven’t we been given free will so we can determine our own future? Waiting for the second coming is like giving up. Isn’t the onus on good people to come together and act, no matter how difficult the task is?
This is getting deep .
Yes everything is about free will though sometimes thats incredibly hard to do practically imposible given some peoples backgrounds are horrendous. Hence trying to follow the right way if your in that much of a hole you can barely see any light.
Denzel Washington sums that up powerfully in one of his films:
I agree good people need to come together and act but that again is easier than done. Its happened before though on a local level as you maybe aware. A woman who came from a council estate where there was a lot of anti social behaviour stood up to it putting herself in danger. Her inspiration gave the strength to others to follow suit and the yobs backed down a lot and things improved a great deal.
This is where I see the problem. Certainty. People who are certain that what they believe is the absolute truth, don’t see the need for compromise. In fact many of them think compromise is a sin if it means going against some tenet of doctrine. Same thing happens with politics - Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. We need more doubt in people. If you have some doubt about what you believe, you are less likely to pull the trigger, and more likely to look at different ways of doing things.
I agree changing this in the Middle East is nigh on impossible. It’s ‘facts on the ground’. Every year the Israelis make more facts on the ground, making it harder to go back to the way things were. I applaud those Jews of good conscience who condemn these actions.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Hold on. The Basques and Kurds haven’t been squeezed out of their homeland, so they’re different cases. Straightforward self-determination, though there will be areas that have mixed populations. Israel has moved people out of their homeland. Why should the Palestinians be the ones to move? Past injustices against the Jews do not excuse that. Why not clear Lincolnshire of people so the Jews can have a homeland? Why not Vermont? Or Kaliningrad? The reason is because of their religion. They were ‘promised’ it by God.
In your solution, Israel won’t give up any land. It’s constantly grabbing more. Imaginative use of money. Swords into ploughshares- I like it.
I agree that the Basques and Kurds haven't been squeezed out, but they have certainly been persecuted just like the 'ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. I was merely making a suggestion for a solution in the creation of a homeland for all Palestinians which would involve Israel giving up the land it occupies around Eilat which has 1 of the three airports I mentioned.
Israel would give up the land with heavy persuasion from the Americans, so it would be feasible.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
This is where I see the problem. Certainty. People who are certain that what they believe is the absolute truth, don’t see the need for compromise. In fact many of them think compromise is a sin if it means going against some tenet of doctrine. Same thing happens with politics - Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. We need more doubt in people. If you have some doubt about what you believe, you are less likely to pull the trigger, and more likely to look at different ways of doing things.
I agree changing this in the Middle East is nigh on impossible. It’s ‘facts on the ground’. Every year the Israelis make more facts on the ground, making it harder to go back to the way things were. I applaud those Jews of good conscience who condemn these actions.
As I have already posted that when you meet extremists they will not give ground, even when you prove them wrong! beyond any doubt. You, therefore, have to get others in the form of the USA and Iran to do it for you. Therein lies another problem with the USA and Iran who are more or less at war with each other, both backing the opposing parties ( Israel & Palestinians ).
In one sense the Palestinian problem is like a mini Vietnam without major powers directly involved. At the end of the day, you have to have both parties willing to compromise which takes us back to square one.
Thankfully as a believer in Jesus, I don't blame Christianity for the problems but the politicians on both sides.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I agree that the Basques and Kurds haven't been squeezed out, but they have certainly been persecuted just like the 'ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. I was merely making a suggestion for a solution in the creation of a homeland for all Palestinians which would involve Israel giving up the land it occupies around Eilat which has 1 of the three airports I mentioned.
Israel would give up the land with heavy persuasion from the Americans, so it would be feasible.
I like your thinking outside the box DB. But the hinterland of Eilat is desert. Why should the Palestinians who were happily living in fertile land until the late 1940s move to the desert? Why can’t they have the land they were living in until forced out?
People think it’s bad enough when hundreds of asylum seekers and refugees are given council flats in this country, let alone millions of them being given taking the choicest places to live.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
I like your thinking outside the box DB. But the hinterland of Eilat is desert. Why should the Palestinians who were happily living in fertile land until the late 1940s move to the desert? Why can’t they have the land they were living in until forced out?
People think it’s bad enough when hundreds of asylum seekers and refugees are given council flats in this country, let alone millions of them being given taking the choicest places to live.
I wasn't saying it is a cast-iron solution to the problem, merely a suggestion. Deserts can be made fertile, hence throwing money at the situation by all parties I mentioned, and according to the maps you posted on another thread that area was part of the old Palestine.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I wasn't saying it is a cast-iron solution to the problem, merely a suggestion. Deserts can be made fertile, hence throwing money at the situation by all parties I mentioned, and according to the maps you posted on another thread that area was part of the old Palestine.
I know you weren’t necessarily suggesting it was a cast iron solution. That’s why I said I like your thinking outside the box.
The cost of making a desert fertile is not only in money. The water has got to come from somewhere else.
Good thinking. Now while you are pondering this, would you kindly pack your essential belongings, whatever you can fit in your car. And tell your neighbours to do the same. We’ve got lots of Welsh people whose ancestors were kicked out of Lincolnshire by the Anglo-Saxons, and they’re moving in. If you want to stick around you can move into the Fitties.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
I know you weren’t necessarily suggesting it was a cast iron solution. That’s why I said I like your thinking outside the box.
The cost of making a desert fertile is not only in money. The water has got to come from somewhere else.
Good thinking. Now while you are pondering this, would you kindly pack your essential belongings, whatever you can fit in your car. And tell your neighbours to do the same. We’ve got lots of Welsh people whose ancestors were kicked out of Lincolnshire by the Anglo-Saxons, and they’re moving in. If you want to stick around you can move into the Fitties.
Personally, I blame the Romans for all this. They built a wall to keep the Scots out but didn't build one to keep the Welsh in! Incidentally, it's also the Romans' fault that Jesus was crucified as they failed to protect him; which is what this thread is really about.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I know you weren’t necessarily suggesting it was a cast iron solution. That’s why I said I like your thinking outside the box.
The cost of making a desert fertile is not only in money. The water has got to come from somewhere else.
Good thinking. Now while you are pondering this, would you kindly pack your essential belongings, whatever you can fit in your car. And tell your neighbours to do the same. We’ve got lots of Welsh people whose ancestors were kicked out of Lincolnshire by the Anglo-Saxons, and they’re moving in. If you want to stick around you can move into the Fitties.
Funnily enough I've always thought I was of good old Lincolnshire / Lindsey stock but my Ancestry DNA results show that there's some Welsh genes in there... don't know exactly how they arrive at this result but maybe my ancestors were part of the tribe that ran from the Saxons and Vikings. Perhaps I should adopt Newport as a second team!
Funnily enough I've always thought I was of good old Lincolnshire / Lindsey stock but my Ancestry DNA results show that there's some Welsh genes in there... don't know exactly how they arrive at this result but maybe my ancestors were part of the tribe that ran from the Saxons and Vikings. Perhaps I should adopt Newport as a second team!
The thing about those that run away is that their genes get passed on unlike those heroes who die 😆.
Can they really tell the difference between English and Welsh (or Scottish and Irish for that matter)? I know they can tell where someone was brought up due to analysis of minerals in your bones etc. But can they really tell from DNA? Maybe the techniques have improved so much.
But, It’s highly likely that most English are a little bit ‘Welsh’ anyway. The Britons were most likely not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons who came in waves over a couple of centuries totalling a few hundred thousand against a population at any one time totalling a few millions. As both cultures relied on the same muscle-powered weapons the task of killing a whole population would be impossible. It might be possible in a few places but once word spread the whole population would resist and the aggressors’ force multipliers weren’t strong enough to overcome them all. It’s most likely just a replacement of warrior elites. The incomers would have needed the Labour of the indigenous lower orders if they were going to live in any comfort.
Through the door there came familiar laughter, I saw your face and heard you call my name. Oh my friend we're older but no wiser, For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.
Load of nonsense. And even if he did exist, what did he do for us exactly to deserve worship? Got nailed to a cross? Not like he had a choice is it?
Felt I need to chip in here again. Jesus was a radical that preached love and good in a world which is often dark and nasty which is why he got killed. It's this message which is the light of good 👊 will always overcome the bad in the long run that will stand the test of time and give hope to all especially those who are suffering greatly mentally and physically.
At the end of the day were all sinners . If we all tried to become a bit better and showed a bit more love to others and collectively tried to respect our environment a bit more the world would be a far better place.
Felt I need to chip in here again. Jesus was a radical that preached love and good in a world which is often dark and nasty which is why he got killed. It's this message which is the light of good 👊 will always overcome the bad in the long run that will stand the test of time and give hope to all especially those who are suffering greatly mentally and physically.
At the end of the day were all sinners . If we all tried to become a bit better and showed a bit more love to others and collectively tried to respect our environment a bit more the world would be a far better place.
Amen.
One of the best posts I've read in weeks, gold star for you my man.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Felt I need to chip in here again. Jesus was a radical that preached love and good in a world which is often dark and nasty which is why he got killed. It's this message which is the light of good 👊 will always overcome the bad in the long run that will stand the test of time and give hope to all especially those who are suffering greatly mentally and physically.
At the end of the day were all sinners . If we all tried to become a bit better and showed a bit more love to others and collectively tried to respect our environment a bit more the world would be a far better place.
Felt I need to chip in here again. Jesus was a radical that preached love and good in a world which is often dark and nasty which is why he got killed. It's this message which is the light of good 👊 will always overcome the bad in the long run that will stand the test of time and give hope to all especially those who are suffering greatly mentally and physically.
At the end of the day were all sinners . If we all tried to become a bit better and showed a bit more love to others and collectively tried to respect our environment a bit more the world would be a far better place.
Amen.
Did he embrace, tolerate and love ALL people?
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.” Bill Shankly
Iam genuinely saddened you think like that Ginny but in life there will always be the doubters . For me the best evidence for what Jesus wanted is being in the wilds of nature especially when the sun rises and seeing everything in harmony.
I think Smokey Jesus essentially loved all but felt those who went against the harmony of it all and damaged others be it physically or emotionally should be reprimanded in some way. We see it now where especially children who are abused sexually,emotionally and physically cant take it no more and hang themselves .Or other children that have been bullied no end by others cant hack it and again hang themselves.
My final message on this thread will be a song which I think captures who I think Jesus was beautifully.Its especially poignant as were still in the Christmas period. As a Catholic Christmas for me does not finish till the 7th January the day after the three wise kings visited Jesus.
And DB, I'd love to see this proof of which you speak as proof would suggest it's irrefutable and that is far from the truth.
I have offered proof before but people choose not to accept it. If you're an atheist Ginny then that's great and I'm pleased for you. Christianity is my choice and I'm not asking you to change your view for me. We all make choices, every day, sometimes others agree and sometimes they don't so agreeing not to agree about the life of Jesus is fine with me.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Christians generally believe the world to be around 12000 years old and bible covers it, starting with Adam and Eve. If that is true, how do they account for dinosaurs?
Christians generally believe the world to be around 12000 years old and bible covers it, starting with Adam and Eve. If that is true, how do they account for dinosaurs?
I've read quite a number of threads and posts on The Fishy which could be called from dinosaurs. On a more serious note, I'm still waiting for proof of how the Big Bang created the universe and life as we know it. 2 molten mass's colliding in an empty universe creates flesh, now that's far-fetched.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I've read quite a number of threads and posts on The Fishy which could be called from dinosaurs. On a more serious note, I'm still waiting for proof of how the Big Bang created the universe and life as we know it. 2 molten mass's colliding in an empty universe creates flesh, now that's far-fetched.
How old do you think our planet is DB?
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.” Bill Shankly
Old enough to be destroyed if the wrong people get access to the nuke buttons.
Well dodged.
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.” Bill Shankly
This could be as long a wait as we’re having for a benefit of brexit?!
Doubt we will get a response.
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.” Bill Shankly
Jesus probably was a real person but the stories about him are on the same level of bullshit as if Jay from the Inbetweeners was cutting about in the Middle East turning water into wine and healing people 2000 years ago.
Lot a very disrespectful comments sadly because Christianity is still fair game.
3 words......pot, kettle, black.
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.” Bill Shankly
A salvation army leaflet came through my door as it does every Christmas and I took the time to read and absorb it properly this time. Feel the work they do is tremendous and helping people through love and community get of the freezing cold streets in this country who are homeless. Some of them it's not all their own fault either eg they loose a child to illness ,then marriage falls apart and depression sets in ,then loose their job and finally become homeless. I note some of these people as well are potentially nearer the trap door as well from the outset eg always had a unstable background from birth. Iam sure some can relate as well.
I know not everyone is religious which is fine, but Jesus existed and was a good man . On that Iam certain having been out to the holy land as well . It's this love he shared for others which is at the heart of the Christian message and which the salvation army try to convey in helping others who are in dire straights which as they stated there are some dying on our streets in the cold winters and others perilously close to it as well. Had it not been intervention from the salvation army people would of certainly died.
Point is it's nice to read heartwarming storys such as these and you realise the world isn't all bad and just concerned with profit .
A salvation army leaflet came through my door as it does every Christmas and I took the time to read and absorb it properly this time. Feel the work they do is tremendous and helping people through love and community get of the freezing cold streets in this country who are homeless. Some of them it's not all their own fault either eg they loose a child to illness ,then marriage falls apart and depression sets in ,then loose their job and finally become homeless. I note some of these people as well are potentially nearer the trap door as well from the outset eg always had a unstable background from birth. Iam sure some can relate as well.
I know not everyone is religious which is fine, but Jesus existed and was a good man . On that Iam certain having been out to the holy land as well . It's this love he shared for others which is at the heart of the Christian message and which the salvation army try to convey in helping others who are in dire straights which as they stated there are some dying on our streets in the cold winters and others perilously close to it as well. Had it not been intervention from the salvation army people would of certainly died.
Point is it's nice to read heartwarming storys such as these and you realise the world isn't all bad and just concerned with profit .
❤️🕯️
It's nice to read a good post about Jesus, especially at this time of the year. I believe a moral from this is that you don't have to be a Christian, or religious, to help others.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
It's nice to read a good post about Jesus, especially at this time of the year. I believe a moral from this is that you don't have to be a Christian, or religious, to help others.
Saw this recently and felt the need to share. I know religion is not to everyone's liking but I admire those that stand up for what they believe in and don't follow like sheep .
A group of ex professional footballers trying to create positive vibes via their Christian faith on the pitch. This includes mentoring and encouraging players to be the best they can be.
"In 2015 Ballers In God was founded by professional footballers desiring to use the platform of football to make Jesus known. Uniting the world of football with faith, BiG has had a tremendous impact on the beautiful game by the grace of God. We have had the honour of mentoring and discipling players around the world, encouraging them to be all God has called them to be both on and off the pitch.
Our goal is simple...to know God and make Him known.
Now you can join us.
No matter what level you're currently playing at. Every time you cross that white line you are representing what you believe.
Representing the truth of the gospel in how you play, the way you compete and now...what you wear!
We have carefully thought about how we can display our faith on the pitch and we've come up with these products to equip you in showing the world what you believe in. With the approval of world class players, we are proud to present to you our performance merchandise".
Performance merchandise eh? I'm sure JC and his dad would approve.
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
Performance merchandise eh? I'm sure JC and his dad would approve.
Mathew 6 v 24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
I work in a church of England school so have heard many, many stories from all different Christians who come in and support the school. Do I believe there was a man who performed miracles? No Do I believe a man sacrificed himself and did great things for people? I guess so.
My personal opinion is there is some truth in the bible stories. But just like anything it gets over exaggerated and is a little bit like Chinese whispers.
I respect anyone and everyone's opinions on the matter.
Performance merchandise eh? I'm sure JC and his dad would approve.
People need to make a living though ( fund the merchandise etc) and at least these ex professional footballers are trying to do some good in a world which is often bad. No person is pure in this life but at least there trying to use something to help better themselves and others emotionally and physically. I know how difficult it is to make it in football having seen it first hand from people I know . Temptations and so forth get in the way. At least these lads ( ballers in God) are trying to help people maximise their God given potential.
I work in a church of England school so have heard many, many stories from all different Christians who come in and support the school.
Do I believe a man sacrificed himself and did great things for people? I guess so.
My personal opinion is there is some truth in the bible stories. But just like anything it gets over exaggerated and is a little bit like Chinese whispers.
I respect anyone and everyone's opinions on the matter.
Some nice sentiments there Lukeo. God bless you pal.
I spoke to a vicar recently who is now retired . He said in many years of church life he found faith schools to be better than secular schools. Stated that children have a role model in Jesus to look up to . Makes sense. I've heard similar from those who have been at the Real Madrid football youth academy. Zinedine Zidane use to be their coach and they looked up to and respected him for what he had achieved in the game. Probably more so than any other normal person .
I don't really get it. A delusional man with an over inflated sense of his own importance, got himself nailed to a tree because he believed that it would somehow cleanse mankind of all its sins and lead to forgiveness for these sins from a non existent entity that he thought was his dad. Then the real unbelievable bit is that 300 years later another bunch of delusional idiots wrote it all down and told people they had to believe it or they would expel them from their organisation and stop them getting into a non existent place presided over by a non existent entity, like they had any say in it, and now for the piece de resistance, people believed them. MADNESS.
Did the Real kids look up to Zidane when he didn't turn the other cheek and headbutted that Italian bloke (Materazzi) in the World Cup Final?
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
I don't really get it. A delusional man with an over inflated sense of his own importance, got himself nailed to a tree because he believed that it would somehow cleanse mankind of all its sins and lead to forgiveness for these sins from a non existent entity that he thought was his dad. Then the real unbelievable bit is that 300 years later another bunch of delusional idiots wrote it all down and told people they had to believe it or they would expel them from their organisation and stop them getting into a non existent place presided over by a non existent entity, like they had any say in it, and now for the piece de resistance, people believed them. MADNESS.
Did the Real kids look up to Zidane when he didn't turn the other cheek and headbutted that Italian bloke (Materazzi) in the World Cup Final?
Jesus was brought up as a Jew . What he tried to do was simplify that and bring about God's way eg trying to make society a better place . He basically said no need for Jewish complex observations of faith like adhering to the Sabbath but just follow God's way eg love and goodness to one another . It was this that got him killed .
Zinedine Zidane is only human though and made a mistake in the heat of battle.
I don't really get it. A delusional man with an over inflated sense of his own importance, got himself nailed to a tree because he believed that it would somehow cleanse mankind of all its sins and lead to forgiveness for these sins from a non existent entity that he thought was his dad. Then the real unbelievable bit is that 300 years later another bunch of delusional idiots wrote it all down and told people they had to believe it or they would expel them from their organisation and stop them getting into a non existent place presided over by a non existent entity, like they had any say in it, and now for the piece de resistance, people believed them. MADNESS.
Did the Real kids look up to Zidane when he didn't turn the other cheek and headbutted that Italian bloke (Materazzi) in the World Cup Final?
Unfortunately, videos and photo's never existed so you do have to rely on historians who confirmed the existence of Jesus. Thousands saw his miracles and hundreds saw him after his resurrection. When I was young if I had told my dad in 70 years time you will be cooking using micro waves in a steel cabinet, talking into a slim bit of plastic and shares an unknown thing called videos with people on the other side of the world, he would have called me insane.
Likewise, because you weren't there does not mean Jesus and his miracles did not happen.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Some nice sentiments there Lukeo. God bless you pal.
I spoke to a vicar recently who is now retired . He said in many years of church life he found faith schools to be better than secular schools. Stated that children have a role model in Jesus to look up to .
Being honest?? Most of the children hate the fact they have to do a prayer 3 times a day and don't believe in Jesus / God etc
Being honest?? Most of the children hate the fact they have to do a prayer 3 times a day and don't believe in Jesus / God etc
Sorry to hear that. There just children though and still forming . At least they will have something to fall back on emotionally when things get tough later in life as it undoubtedly will. I've often found as have others after very difficult experiences in life just sitting in a quiet church and seeing candles lit can be immeasurably therapeutic.
Sorry to hear that. There just children though and still forming . At least they will have something to fall back on emotionally when things get tough later in life as it undoubtedly will. I've often found as have others after very difficult experiences in life just sitting in a quiet church and seeing candles lit can be immeasurably therapeutic.
I can understand that to some extent.... a moment of quiet reflection is something that can benefit us all in many ways
For me though, the difference is it doesn't need to be in a church; it can be outside watching the tide coming and going or taking in the sights and sounds of the countryside, listening to the birdsong etc
I'll never knock those who find solace in a church of course but imho it can be equally therapeutic to recharge those batteries away from such a place
Being honest?? Most of the children hate the fact they have to do a prayer 3 times a day and don't believe in Jesus / God etc
Indoctrination.
They shouldn't be compelled to pray and have a belief system at such a young and impressionable age. If they come to God in adulthood of their own volition, then so be it.
For me though, the difference is it doesn't need to be in a church; it can be outside watching the tide coming and going or taking in the sights and sounds of the countryside, listening to the birdsong etc
They shouldn't be compelled to pray and have a belief system at such a young and impressionable age. If they come to God in adulthood of their own volition, then so be it.
Really? I'm giving an honest post about how they feel. All our children receive their own bible to keep.
Perhaps I was harsh on you and I apologise. What annoys me is that other religions teach their children about their religion and we don't seem to. I'm not saying push down their throats but it seems to be left in the distant background.
Giving them a Bible is great but then they need to be taught about the New Testament and Jesus.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
They shouldn't be compelled to pray and have a belief system at such a young and impressionable age. If they come to God in adulthood of their own volition, then so be it.
Amen Ginny!
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
It was suggest on the Film Thread that this might be a topic for discussion.
I am a Christian and fully believe in the life and death of Jesus Christ. People ask for proof of his life on this earth and learned people start at Genesis going onto the New Testament quoting various scriptures. Some making themselves multi millionaires with large ego's.
Having read a lot of this I have thought about the proof of Jesus Christ's life from a different angle. I am sure most are familiar with the Vatican which is my start. I am not a Catholic, but ask any Catholic who the first Pope was? St. Peter, as in St Peter's Basilica the present day Vatican.
St. Peter is the same Peter in the New Testament who wrote the Books 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The same Peter a disciple of Jesus whom Jesus said Mat 16.18 'Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church'.
This is my simple summary of proof why I believe in Jesus Christ without resorting to scriptures.
I would also add that I do not fly the flag of any Christian religion as in my opinion, all fall short of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe, or want or do not want to believe, is your choice and a purely personal one. As I have said several times on other posts I respect people opinions and hope they respect mine.
I am an atheist and have been since roughly 8 years old when attending a CoE Primary School. It didn't stop me being interested enough in different religions to voluntarily do Religious Studies at GCSE.
There are roughly 3,000 gods worshipped on earth. I'm guessing if you're a christian you don't believe in 2,999 of them. I don't believe in just 1 more than you. (I nicked that off Ricky Gervais)
I am an atheist and have been since roughly 8 years old when attending a CoE Primary School. It didn't stop me being interested enough in different religions to voluntarily do Religious Studies at GCSE.
There are roughly 3,000 gods worshipped on earth. I'm guessing if you're a christian you don't believe in 2,999 of them. I don't believe in just 1 more than you. (I nicked that off Ricky Gervais)
I am an atheist and have been since roughly 8 years old when attending a CoE Primary School. It didn't stop me being interested enough in different religions to voluntarily do Religious Studies at GCSE.
There are roughly 3,000 gods worshipped on earth. I'm guessing if you're a christian you don't believe in 2,999 of them. I don't believe in just 1 more than you. (I nicked that off Ricky Gervais)
The problem with a lot of people who say they are Christians is that they just use the name of Jesus for their own ends. The CofE and RC both pretend to be poor and ask for money yet their churches are full of gold and precious metal cups etc., bank a/cs are amongst the most wealthy and their higher archy live like CEOs. The C of E has just put aside £100 million for slavery claims, this from a church that has no money.
Then you have those who 'Take the Cloth' for a free house and pension and those that attend a church service to be seen. Unfortunately, all this gives the words of Jesus little meaning in the world today, as the opposite to what he spoke about is carried out in his name by those who call themselves Christians.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
We do RE once a week. We have assemblies 5 days a week, 2 of which are done by a visitor from our local church, we do a prayer before lunch, in assembly and at the end of the school day, we do regular trips to the local church for different 'events'
As with the monarchy, I struggle to see the role religion really plays in a modern day society but I suspect, given the current mental health crisis, we may see people turn to the church or religious leaders for solace or simply someone to talk to.
I think there’s a place for belief and it provides people something to cling to or feel safe around but I don’t think there’s a place for a controlling, take take take religion which relies on its congregations to be subservient to something which can’t be proved either way…especially in the name of Jesus Christ.
As with all organisations, there are wrong uns, although the Catholic Church seems to have much more than others. Not to mention their links to organised crime, people trafficking and money laundering…
If people want to believe then that’s up to them, there’s an argument the lie of Christmas and Santa is equally as damaging to some extent as the lie that one man created all this…it’s the outward marketing, the propaganda and, in the case of some religions, aggressive advertising of their religion…
'the poor and the needy are selfish and greedy'...well done Mozza
Unfortunately, videos and photo's never existed so you do have to rely on historians who confirmed the existence of Jesus. Thousands saw his miracles and hundreds saw him after his resurrection. When I was young if I had told my dad in 70 years time you will be cooking using micro waves in a steel cabinet, talking into a slim bit of plastic and shares an unknown thing called videos with people on the other side of the world, he would have called me insane.
Likewise, because you weren't there does not mean Jesus and his miracles did not happen.
I’m sorry but how do human technological advances in any way conflate to “well a man might have literally walked on water 2000 years ago”?
I do not believe any of the bible you have only got to play the game of Chinese whispers to know how stories get added to and changed dramatically from the original story.
BUT
Have no trouble with people believing otherwise.
Over 36 years living in Suffolk but always a mariner. 68 Years following the Town
Unfortunately, today people do not to recognise the reports from the historians of the day. They wish to only accept the technology of today.
No ‘historians’ claimed that Jesus actually walked on water, something which is scientifically impossible. Technology has nothing to do with it, it’s just basic science.
Because we don't understand how to do things it doesn't mean they are impossible. Before 1903 nothing that was heavy could take to the air, until the Wright Brothers. Now, multiton weights float around the sky.
There are other events that are now true and many old events that don't happen anymore, it doesn't mean they never happened in the first place.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
Because we don't understand how to do things it doesn't mean they are impossible. Before 1903 nothing that was heavy could take to the air, until the Wright Brothers. Now, multiton weights float around the sky.
There are other events that are now true and many old events that don't happen anymore, it doesn't mean they never happened in the first place.
Your first paragraph is just how technological advancement works. Years ago we couldn’t put the heart from a dead person into someone else, now we can. There was no technology or knowledge to allow men to walk on water, it isn’t possible.. And it was also described as a ‘miracle’ in the bible aka total boll0cks. Its not like 2000 years ago in the Middle East everyone knew how to take a shortcut over a river without a bridge or a boat.
But that’s my point. It’s your belief but that is it. That is all it is. Any talk of technological advances since your dad was a lad does not somehow lend any substance to your belief that something scientifically impossible that almost certainly didn’t happen is in fact a literal historical account.
You are of course very welcome to your beliefs and I hope that they bring you comfort or whatever it is you seek from religion. But it’s always irritating when the religious try to make what is palpable nonsense out to be something credible.
You are of course very welcome to your beliefs and I hope that they bring you comfort or whatever it is you seek from religion.
I like what Teddy Atlas the legendary boxing trainer said though mariner. Listening to his autobiography in audible I think was brought up Catholic but has always maintained I felt an openness be it spiritual / religious to the vastness of our ever expanding universe. Stated loosely that in his experience of life the more clean you try to keep something which could be physical and emotional the better one feels and life becomes. I think this is what Jesus was alluding to when he was alive as well. Likewise I note some of my favourite actors and musicians are both religious eg Denzel Washington and Stormzy who both have tried to use the median of films and music to create positive change. Indeed Stormzys blinded by your grace is my favourite song ever ( alludes to his faith in God changing him for the better ) but as he recently said in a TV programme he done with Louis Theroux faith in God eg he is a Christian is something that comes from deep within and you have to come about it via your own subconscious and not have it forced on you .
The Vatican, also known as St Peters Basilica named and documented after the 1st Bishop of Rome, later made a saint, Peter Peter who started one of the first Christian churches in Rome Peter can be traced as the same Peter who wrote the epistles Peter 1 & 2 in the New Testament The same Peter upon whom Jesus said 'I will my rock' The same Peter walked with Jesus and witnessed what Jesus did.
You can please some of the forumites some of the time but not all the forumites all of the time
The Vatican, also known as St Peters Basilica named and documented after the 1st Bishop of Rome, later made a saint, Peter Peter who started one of the first Christian churches in Rome Peter can be traced as the same Peter who wrote the epistles Peter 1 & 2 in the New Testament The same Peter upon whom Jesus said 'I will my rock' The same Peter walked with Jesus and witnessed what Jesus did.
According to unverified sources.
Something can't be true, unless you have proof. Otherwise it's just a belief.
Performance merchandise eh? I'm sure JC and his dad would approve.
Listening to John Bostock ( owners of ballers in God) tonight on Instagram live stated that the money they make from merchandise is invested back in the product and used to work with other Christian organisations. Spreading a wholesome message. Good on him 👌.
I'm sorry Rick but I can't have meaningful discourse with anybody who thinks that Blinded by your Grace is Stormzys best track.
It's quite obviously Shut Up
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
I'm sorry Rick but I can't have meaningful discourse with anybody who thinks that Blinded by your Grace is Stormzys best track.
It's quite obviously Shut Up
No that's a quality song . Video and lyrics are inspiring 🙂🌠. You need to open your mind . I think people feel it more depending on their circumstances as well. If you come from a place which has been dark and see light and good which transforms and helps your soul you relate more to the song. Again experience is the best teacher .
That is the most condescending piece of crap I've ever seen written.
Open my mind? You don't know what I've experienced, my circumstances, how dark a place I've been to. I don't have a soul. I am born and I will die. The bit in the middle has not been determined by some higher power and when it's over there is no soul to pass up to heaven, there is no eternity, my existence will be terminated. Why do you have to cling to these notions that some part of you lives forever, that your existence is supposed to mean something, that there is a reason for you being here. There isn't. Religion, the afterlife, it's just a way of controlling people. Ironically the more people 'open their minds' the more they see through the lie.
Marx was right. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
And when you fall back into the mud it hurts a lot. No! None of it was true, none of those things we thought we could see existed at all. All that was really there was still more misery
That is the most condescending piece of crap I've ever seen written.
Open my mind? You don't know what I've experienced, my circumstances, how dark a place I've been to. I don't have a soul. I am born and I will die. The bit in the middle has not been determined by some higher power and when it's over there is no soul to pass up to heaven, there is no eternity, my existence will be terminated. Why do you have to cling to these notions that some part of you lives forever, that your existence is supposed to mean something, that there is a reason for you being here. There isn't. Religion, the afterlife, it's just a way of controlling people. Ironically the more people 'open their minds' the more they see through the lie.
Marx was right. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Unfortunately I agree with everything you say here regarding life and religion to varying degrees. I would however, say that you’ve taken the ‘open your mind comment’ a little to heart if you don’t mind my saying. I made a similar mistake early doors with Rick and thought similarly. However, I’ve got to know him since and I’m fairly certain that he would not have meant it as it’s been received and no malice was intended. In fact the opposite is probably true! Obviously he can tell you this himself but it sometimes it’s better coming from a third party if you will and may save you time going back and forth when we should be on the transfer thread!!😊
“I know writers who use subtext and they’re all cowards.” –Garth Marenghi
That is the most condescending piece of crap I've ever seen written.
Disappointed in you .Ive liked some of your sentiments but Iam not having the above at all. Not condescending at all but coming from a real place based on very difficult experiences . Sad to see you've wrote the above and personally think there is no truth in it at all and frankly its dark. You've made a big mistake there pal.
Open my mind? You don't know what I've experienced, my circumstances, how dark a place I've been to. I don't have a soul. I am born and I will die. The bit in the middle has not been determined by some higher power and when it's over there is no soul to pass up to heaven, there is no eternity, my existence will be terminated. Why do you have to cling to these notions that some part of you lives forever, that your existence is supposed to mean something, that there is a reason for you being here. There isn't. Religion, the afterlife, it's just a way of controlling people. Ironically the more people 'open their minds' the more they see through the lie.
Marx was right. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Who the hell is Marx. I doubt he had all the answers. I do feel and always have that this universe was not caused by chance . Something divine I feel caused it. When we die that's probably it but its up to us the legacy we leave behind. Will it be a positive or negative one dependent on the actions we have created while we are alive.
Disappointed in you .Ive liked some of your sentiments but Iam not having the above at all. Not condescending at all but coming from a real place based on very difficult experiences . Sad to see you've wrote the above and personally think there is no truth in it at all and frankly its dark. You've made a big mistake there pal.
Who the hell is Marx. I doubt he had all the answers. I do feel and always have that this universe was not caused by chance . Something divine I feel caused it. When we die that's probably it but its up to us the legacy we leave behind. Will it be a positive or negative one dependent on the actions we have created while we are alive.
Pretty famous bloke, you should probably look in to him.
Pretty famous bloke, you should probably look in to him.
I was being in tongue in cheek Mariner. Of course I know who Karl Marx is . Point being no matter how much brains/ ideas/ sentiments you have or can put eloquently no person has all the answers to lifes complexity's no matter how supposedly gifted they are.
Always been there Ginny . There's things the human consciousness hasn't got an answer for. Science doesn't have the answers to everything.
I was being in tongue in cheek Mariner. Of course I know who Karl Marx is . Point being no matter how much brains/ ideas/ sentiments you have or can put eloquently no person has all the answers to lifes complexity's no matter how supposedly gifted they are.
Put it it this way. His message of love and doing good to one another goes a long way to making this world a better place. If more people tried to follow that there would be far less murders and suicides in this world 🌠.
Always been there Ginny . There's things the human consciousness hasn't got an answer for. Science doesn't have the answers to everything.
I was being in tongue in cheek Mariner. Of course I know who Karl Marx is . Point being no matter how much brains/ ideas/ sentiments you have or can put eloquently no person has all the answers to lifes complexity's no matter how supposedly gifted they are.
Before there was nothing and then there was something. That explosion that gave rise to the big bang which science backs up . Some consider it chance I consider it divine and like noted even Richard Dawkins who I respect but don't completely trust has admitted as much in the God delusion. Even he's not 100% convinced that this universe was caused by chance and leaves a small percentage for the wonder of it all.
Edit . God for me is linked to that omnipresent energy that has always existed .
Iam going to leave it here but as somebody who lost someone I was close to at school ( problems after he left school ,became more isolated and things snowballed . Police found him two weeks after he had died in his room ,due to concerns by neighbours ) .This song sums up what is often wrong in our world eg lack of love ,mocking ,hypocrisy, ignorance, greed etc . Peace out 🌠.
This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
DB
lukeo
Logged
