|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted August 06, 2007 01:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't pick and choose...
Uhm yes in fact you can.
The entire problem with the old testament is that it's pure mythology. Just like Greek or Egyptian (both of those had their ghastly moments), such is the Jewish too.
Christ is something different. Christ actually saw that the old testament was more something of a code of behaviour than what really happened, and saw moral and many other mistakes in it. So he started teaching people to throw off those who serve the old testament, rabins etc. and remake their religion - he of course based something on the Abrahamic God so that he convinces people in his teachings more easily (he would've gotten probably nowhere if he teached about a second God), but it is quite clear that God in the first and in the second testament are quite different.
Now, to answer your 16 as usual completely misunderstood 'quotes' about the new testament:
Quote:
-Jesus teaches his disciples to abandon their families. "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
"Hate"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Jesus was fully aware of the danger of someone being his disciple. It was out of question that someone takes his entire family with him, lest they all get hurt. Jesus needed people who would help him enlighten the populace, but saw no reason in bringing women, children and old people with him on such perilous journeys and eventual horrifying deaths (remember the deaths of some other apostles). All of those he picked to come with him had a choice, and chose to follow him.
Quote:
-Teaches sado-masochism. God incarnated himself as a man; Jesus, in order that he should be tortured and executed in atonement for the hereditary sin of Adam.
1) Jesus wasn't God incarnate. He speaks to God as his father, not his being by itself.
2) Not the hereditary sin of Adam. That sin was, in Jewish mythology, attoned for during Noah's tsunami or whatever. Imaginary sin paid for in an imaginary deed. Now, Jesus wanted to attone for real sins of humanity; and not because he feared God would drown everyone, but because he wanted to show mankind where they are wrong. Now, if you read the book carefully and not just to get quote-war matherial, you would have noticed that Jesus says that his point wouldn't be taken immediately. Even worse, people will understand him wrongly for many centuries, along with false prophets who claim they're second Christs just to make people into their slaves. But in the end, he says, those who understand him will reach salvation.
What salvation did he think of? Going to heaven? Perhaps. But he also thought of the philosophical, spiritual salvation of the physical mankind. Imagine all people on Earth understand Christ the way he wanted it - that no one hurts anyone, that they love each other etc. That is utopia, of course, but it is theoretically possible, if people would just get to understand the guy.
Quote:
-Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered in order to redeem us, why take it out on Judas and the jews? As is revealed in the long lost Gospel of Judas, the case is made that Jesus asked Judas to betray him.
He didn't 'take it out' on anyone, but on mankind itself. The fact that he lived in the region where there were only jews and romans explains that he couldn't 'take it out' on, say, japanese people.
He asked Judas to sacrifice him to eventually show the world where they are wrong. That seems radical, yes, but it only proves what a brave man Jesus was.
And besides, Judas didn't kill him. The Church killed him. Rabines went around convincing people to let that criminal go (I don't know what he's called in the english bible, he's called Varava in mine). Judas was just on a mission to tell them where he is.
Quote:
-If god wanted to forgive our sins, why get himself tortured in order to persecute the jews?
Lol in order to persecute the jews? What are you on about?
Quote:
-If the Old Testament is symbolic, then Jesus had himself tortured and executed in a vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a nonexistent individual.
Already answered that. It was for ALL the sins, true, metaphoric, everything, not for the sin of Adam.
Quote:
-In Revelations, the number of those 'sealed' is limited to 144,000; 12000 from each of the 12 tribes of jews. These people can only be sealed if they "did not defile themselves with women", which means that they cannot be women.
Yea, uhm, that part is trippy. One point for you. 
Remember, Jesus didn't write that... :/ And remember the time the revelations were written.
The jews were for them the world. So the jews obviously mean the world; 144,000 jews will probably be something more like 144 million people from 12 groups of people: Slavic, Germanic, Romanic, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Nativeamerican, Mongol, black peoples (I can't name them all... Bantu, Swazi, forgot the other ones) etc. We can't know, there must be like 700 possible metaphores lying in that. Time will tell 
Quote:
-Matthew and Luke cannot agree on the Virgin Birth. They contradict each other, Matthew saying that Joseph was "warned in a dream" to make an immediate escape and Luke says that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's "purification according to the laws of Moses"
Two guys can't agree on whether Jesus's family escaped immediately or a few days later. That certainly ruins all credibility of Jesus's teachings, right? 
Quote:
-Luke states that Jesus was born the year when Caesar Augustus ordered a census, at the same time as when Herod resigned in Judaea and Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Herod died 4 years BC, and there is only one claim ever made to support a census by Augustus, and even that is six years after Jesus birth.
So he miscalculated the year. Zomg.
Hail TA, the master of missing the point.
Quote:
-One of the lost gospels uncovered 6 years ago, claims that the god of the old testament is a ghastly emanation from sick minds, and hat Judas claimed that Jesus was from the immortal realm of Barbelo (a heavenly desinatin beyond the stars), and that Jesus is an avatar of Seth, the third son of Adam. Regognizing that Judas is at least a minor adept of this cult, Jesus takes him to one side and awards him the special mission of helping him shed his fleshly form and thus return heavenward. He also promises to show him the stars that will enable Judas to follow on.
Sounds alot like Scientology to me.
Scientology?
Do you know anything about scientology?
Scientology preaches about an evil alien overlord who put souls in airplanes and threw them in a volcano... Let's not get this conversation toward scientology.
That gospel only proves that Jesus believed in something far different from the Abrahamic war god. Whether what he believed is true or wrong, we can't judge cause, well, we don't even know what it is. His teachings, though, were much brighter than those of the church of the Abrahamic God at the time he lived, which, well, makes Jesus's religion better in my eyes. Even if what he believed in wasn't true (and again we can't possibly know that), I would always pick a good over a bad fairytale.
Quote:
-The prophecies in the old testament say that the messiah will be born in the city of David, Bethlehem. However Jesus parents were from Nazareth and if they had a child it was most likely delivered in that down. This accounts for the fabricated tales of Augustus, Herod and Quirinius, in order to move the nativity scene to Bethlehem (where no stable is ever mentioned)
Since when has "most likely" become undeniable proof? And even IF he was born in Nazareth, does it really matter? Perhaps Jesus simply used the prophecy to bring his teachings to the people closer. And many things from the prophecy WERE the same with what Jesus did. Saying someone cannot be a messiah just because he wasn't born where a prophet said he would be born is a clear remaining of the dumb matherialism that was much present among the people at the time (along with not considering someone a saint if he doesn't have a yellow circle over his head).
Quote:
-Jesus makes large claims for his heavenly father but never mentions that his mother is or was a virgin, and is repeatedly very rude to her when she makes an appearance to ask how he is getting on.
By repeatedly rude I believe you mean John 2:4?
"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."
As James Patrick Holding stated:
Critics often accuse Jesus of being rude to his mother here; however, as parallel phrases in Greek literature show, this is not a phrase of derision or rudeness but of loving respect (as our NIV correctly captures). Consider this relevant data:
1. The term here is "Jesus' normal, public way of addressing women" (John 4:21, 8:10, 19:26, 20:31; Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12). It is also a common address in Greek literature, and never has the intent of disrespect or hostility. [Brow.GJ, 99].
2. The same term is used in Josephus Antiquities 17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife. [Beas.J, 34]
3. As for the second part of the response, it reads literally: "What to me and to you?" This is a Semitic phrase that indicates that the speaker is being unjustly bothered or is being asked to get involved in a matter that is not their business. It can be impolite, but not always. (cf. 2 Kings 3:13, Hos. 14:8) [Brow.GJ, 117] The intent must be determined by the context, and the first part of Jesus' saying does point to the latter intent.
Malina and Rohrbaugh [Social-Science commentary, 299] add that such implication of distance was in fact quite proper in a society where men were expected to break the maternal bonds by a certain age. Jesus' reaction is entirely respectful and appropriate in this context.
Good enough as a response?
Quote:
-The Virgin Mary appears to have no memory of the Archangel Gabriel's visitation, or of the swarm of angels. In fact it appears as if Jesus birth was a shock, in all accounts.
I didn't quite get you there.
How can a child's birth be a shock ffs? They have 9 months to prepare... :/
Quote:
-Luke refers to the "parents of Jesus" as only Joseph and Mary
Sigh... Dude, come ON...
He obviously means the parents on this world; aka their public human forms. Joseph acted as his father, and Mary, well, she WAS his mother.
Quote:
-Mary had four other sons, including another called Jesus, in the gospel according to James. How did she go on producing children, by the man Joseph who only exists in reported speech?
In reported speech?
Huh?
Joseph did exist and was her husband. That implies that they might've had children... I don't see anything unclear about that.
Quote:
-In Matthew 15:21-28 we read the contempt for a canaanite woman who asked for help, saying he would not waste his energy on a non-jew
1) He helped the woman in the end.
2) The christian church might've put that part in later to "show" that those who don't belong to them (aka those of other religions) must prove their worthiness greatly, and take their religion, to receive their aid. Such parts are not unusual in the new testament, as it has been edited several times by the Church to suit their needs.
Quote:
-Many stories exist where none but Jesus and the person he is talking to are around. Who writes the stories?
Jesus or that person tell people about it? Stories spread quickly.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2007 01:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Judas is condemned in stories, hymns, paintings and pretty much all of Christian dogma for his betrayal.
y, but afaik, not in the bible itself. I might have missed something, though.
Quote:
But this is a slip-up on Luke's behalf contradicting this.
Since they were something like his foster parents, we can argue he could call them simply "parents" imo, without contradiction.
Quote:
I'm not trying to, it's just pointing out that the new testament is immoral
I still wouldn't say so  I can give millions of examples why it's the most moral thing I've ever read. Yet you can give only one or two.. and pretty ambigous aswell.
well, anyway, since the thread is marked "to delete", it's the end of our discussion anyway.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted August 06, 2007 03:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Judas is condemned in stories, hymns, paintings and pretty much all of Christian dogma for his betrayal.
Not interly true.
in one of the apokrifs,as i mentioned thusand times before,Judas is not condemned in it. Judas Did not betray jesus for personall gain.
Infect Judas and Merry magdalain ware hes closest discples. It was also hinted that merry magdlaian and jesus ware having an affair,it was logical to say they ware merrid.
And now imagine this very reasonbull scene:
I'm a leader.
My right hand is my wife,my left hand is my best frinde(aka judas).Now imagine that my soldiers who are actually fanatics,quite fanatical and radical,now think of the woman status at the time. and now think of jewish-roman realtinship.
Acording to it,Jesus KNEW he would be crossed,and betrayed,by judas,and had told judas that someone will betray him.
It might not excally be JUDAS as we have no actuall proof,the stuff written in the book could be a lie for all we know.
But think,if one of the apostals did it,and blaime judas becouse of jelousy,wouldnt that explain stuff more. i mean Judas was close to jesus then most.
Wouldnt Mary magdlain knew,and thats why they made her to be a prostetiute. Wouldnt that be very comfterbull centourys and dacades later to blaim the jews "for killing christ"? Wouldnt that justify the antisemetism? the wasent racism coming from belive?
This is why i hate realigons in general,and christinity the most.
Becouse of radical fanatsim. There is no radical atheists that kill and genocide of crusade to kill all belivers?
...maybe the're should be...
besides. I hate religion,i fight it,thats why im The antipaladin.
why did we leave peganism..? everyone was so happy,no body gave a rats claw on what the nighboor belived in. It wasent that marked.
and now? you cant say a thing. If you say that u go by your realgion an atheist or another realigon memmber will be "offended". I think it should be personal. Only in the heart.
and stuff like temples and etc.should be banned from existence.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted August 06, 2007 05:11 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 21:54, 06 Aug 2007.
|
Quote:
well, anyway, since the thread is marked "to delete", it's the end of our discussion anyway.
That's why I suggested to either give the "rating power" to Mods only, or to make it visible for everyone who rated the thread.
I find it kinda childish to rate a thread like this "to delete". That's why I rated different now. Let's see how long it will take until a lonesome "5 red star" member continues that game.
Edit:
Further discussion about "rating threads" can be found here.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 06, 2007 07:55 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 19:59, 06 Aug 2007.
|
I Agree
I don't understand why raters aren't made public. In fact I think a five-star member can continually rate the same thread over and over and that doesn't make sense either. They should only be allowed one rating per thread much in the way a poll is done. Each member only gets a single vote and then they are locked out from voting.
Edit: I have enjoyed reading this thread too! I like TitaniumAlloy, Doomforge, and Baklava's comments. Just love em! TitaniumAlloy killed me with saying that 50% of America's electorate was comprised of people who take the bible literally. I almost died laughing.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Tenaka
Famous Hero
Makes sense
|
|
posted August 06, 2007 10:38 PM |
|
|
Well, I've read the bibly once, but that was a long time ago, so I only remember the essence of everything. But, I think it's a pretty good book. Why? Because, no matter how much some of the anti-Bible people rant on here on how it hates gay people, and refer to Hitler, The Bible has a lot of valid points:
Let's just summarize the summary of the summary of the summary of the summary of the bible:
Love thy Neighbour
Does anybody have a problem with that? No, I didn't think so...
And yes, of course it's true that there are some horrible and confusing things in it. But like it's said a couple of times in the 'I gave up on...God' threads, it was written over 2000 years ago. How accurate can it be on todays society?
The church of course did change somethings along the way - not a good idea, probably, but well, the church has done good as well as bad things, so I can imagine the Bible being changed everytime a new Pope was elected, at some point in history - and that can be confusing. But well, try to read between the lines!
Anything else that's wrong with the book that don't have anything to do with the above, well, I guess that can't be excused. 
But I've also once read a book about politics, and that can be just as worse... 
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 07:05 AM |
|
|
I love how people worship the New Testament as if it brings in so many original ideas.
"Don't cause harm" and "love thy neighbour" (in fact, love thy neighbour back then meant love another jew)... Morals such as these existed before anyone wrote any book. Just no one listened to them. And they still don't.
I could write a book called 'you shouldn't call people names' or 'you shouldn't rate threads to delete', nothing would change, and it certainly wouldn't be worthy of worship.
Quote:
Uhm yes in fact you can.
The entire problem with the old testament is that it's pure mythology. Just like Greek or Egyptian (both of those had their ghastly moments), such is the Jewish too.
Either you discard the entire Old Testament, or you follow it all. Most christians do the latter.
You can't choose what passages you wish to follow, that's like making up your own religion.
Quote:
Christ is something different. Christ actually saw that the old testament was more something of a code of behaviour than what really happened, and saw moral and many other mistakes in it. So he started teaching people to throw off those who serve the old testament, rabins etc. and remake their religion - he of course based something on the Abrahamic God so that he convinces people in his teachings more easily (he would've gotten probably nowhere if he teached about a second God), but it is quite clear that God in the first and in the second testament are quite different.
In the lost gospels he did say that the old testament god was different.
Quote:
Quote:
-Jesus teaches his disciples to abandon their families. "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
"Hate"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Jesus was fully aware of the danger of someone being his disciple. It was out of question that someone takes his entire family with him, lest they all get hurt. Jesus needed people who would help him enlighten the populace, but saw no reason in bringing women, children and old people with him on such perilous journeys and eventual horrifying deaths (remember the deaths of some other apostles). All of those he picked to come with him had a choice, and chose to follow him.
So people who wanted to follow Christianity were pressed with the following decision;
Either abandon their family entirely to follow Jesus
or
Abandon Jesus entirely to stay with their family, and probs go to hell.
Surely the messiah can set up a better arrangement than that, even if his family values are a little skewed.
As the comedian Julia Sweeney correctly said, "Isn't that what cults do? Get you to reject your family in order to inculcate you?"
Quote:
1) Jesus wasn't God incarnate. He speaks to God as his father, not his being by itself.
Makes me wonder how much of the bible you actually do understand.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make up the one God...
Quote:
2) Not the hereditary sin of Adam. That sin was, in Jewish mythology, attoned for during Noah's tsunami or whatever. Imaginary sin paid for in an imaginary deed. Now, Jesus wanted to attone for real sins of humanity; and not because he feared God would drown everyone, but because he wanted to show mankind where they are wrong. Now, if you read the book carefully and not just to get quote-war matherial, you would have noticed that Jesus says that his point wouldn't be taken immediately. Even worse, people will understand him wrongly for many centuries, along with false prophets who claim they're second Christs just to make people into their slaves. But in the end, he says, those who understand him will reach salvation.
What salvation did he think of? Going to heaven? Perhaps. But he also thought of the philosophical, spiritual salvation of the physical mankind. Imagine all people on Earth understand Christ the way he wanted it - that no one hurts anyone, that they love each other etc. That is utopia, of course, but it is theoretically possible, if people would just get to understand the guy.
Forgetting the fact that if Adam's sin was attoned for, why do men still toil the fields, women still have terrible pain in childbirth, and we still don't have that damn eternal life.
Forgetting all of that.
Adam eating from the forbidden tree is the original sin, which is passed down through the semen, according to Augustine. (what kind of an ethical philosophy condemns every child before they are born?) And according to Paul, Jesus is worshipped as the redeemer of our sins, not just in the past but even future sins we may or may not choose to commit!
You tell me to read the book carefully yet you do not speak on behalf of the scriptures, you seem to be defending Jesus, not the bible, and you seem to have avoided the question; If god wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment- thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as 'Christ-killers': did that hereditary sin pass down in the semen too?
Why does it need to be sealed in whips and blood and betrayal?
Because it makes a damn good book. And movie too.
Quote:
He didn't 'take it out' on anyone, but on mankind itself.
So Jesus takes it out on mankind? What are you saying?
Quote:
The fact that he lived in the region where there were only jews and romans explains that he couldn't 'take it out' on, say, japanese people.
LOL
Lucky for the Japanese then, phew.
Why take it out on anyone? Who was god trying to impress? Presumably himself- judge and jury as well as execution victim.
Quote:
He asked Judas to sacrifice him to eventually show the world where they are wrong. That seems radical, yes, but it only proves what a brave man Jesus was.
And besides, Judas didn't kill him. The Church killed him. Rabines went around convincing people to let that criminal go (I don't know what he's called in the english bible, he's called Varava in mine). Judas was just on a mission to tell them where he is.
Lol in order to persecute the jews? What are you on about?
You seem to be saying that the Jews aren't persecuted for killing Jesus, but then you go on to say 'The Church killed him.' That's exactly who did it.
They killed him, and Judas betrayed him (whether or not that was intentional is up to you), and they get the blame.
Quote:
Quote:
-In Revelations, the number of those 'sealed' is limited to 144,000; 12000 from each of the 12 tribes of jews. These people can only be sealed if they "did not defile themselves with women", which means that they cannot be women.
Yea, uhm, that part is trippy. One point for you.
Remember, Jesus didn't write that... :/ And remember the time the revelations were written.
The jews were for them the world. So the jews obviously mean the world; 144,000 jews will probably be something more like 144 million people from 12 groups of people: Slavic, Germanic, Romanic, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Nativeamerican, Mongol, black peoples (I can't name them all... Bantu, Swazi, forgot the other ones) etc. We can't know, there must be like 700 possible metaphores lying in that. Time will tell
Again, you defend Jesus, not the Bible. What's the thread title again?
This is a prime example of the 'out-group' morality exhibited in the bible, summed up in "Love another Jew" unless of course she's a useless woman...
Quote:
Two guys can't agree on whether Jesus's family escaped immediately or a few days later. That certainly ruins all credibility of Jesus's teachings, right?
Perhaps if you toned down the sarcasm a little and actually knew as much about the bible as you claim to, you would know that its not a few days later, but Matthew is indicating that it was at least 40 days later.
A direct contradiction that disrupts the credibility of The Bible. Not Jesus per se.
Quote:
Quote:
-Luke states that Jesus was born the year when Caesar Augustus ordered a census, at the same time as when Herod resigned in Judaea and Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Herod died 4 years BC, and there is only one claim ever made to support a census by Augustus, and even that is six years after Jesus birth.
So he miscalculated the year. Zomg.
Hail TA, the master of missing the point.
Oh contraire.
Miscalculated a year? Oh, how wrong you can be.
This triangulation of dates gives the most detailed description of time out of anywhere in the bible, and it is utterly wrong. Luke claims that those three events happened at the same time, yet they are definitely not even within years of each other (how can you get that wrong?), but some of them may not have even existed. Which also brings back to the point about why Mary and Joseph would have had to have been in Nazareth, if there was a census.
Quote:
Scientology?
Do you know anything about scientology?
Scientology preaches about an evil alien overlord who put souls in airplanes and threw them in a volcano... Let's not get this conversation toward scientology.
That gospel only proves that Jesus believed in something far different from the Abrahamic war god. Whether what he believed is true or wrong, we can't judge cause, well, we don't even know what it is. His teachings, though, were much brighter than those of the church of the Abrahamic God at the time he lived, which, well, makes Jesus's religion better in my eyes. Even if what he believed in wasn't true (and again we can't possibly know that), I would always pick a good over a bad fairytale.
Well, I don't know that much, but I know they believe that they have an ethereal form called a thetan, and can leave their physical body to go to another place. Which is exactly what Jesus asks Judas to do here.
Not only that, but it depicts Jesus as not even the son of god, but the son of Seth, grandson of Seth and leader of the Sethites... weird. Good thing they cut it out of the bible
Quote:
Since when has "most likely" become undeniable proof? And even IF he was born in Nazareth, does it really matter? Perhaps Jesus simply used the prophecy to bring his teachings to the people closer. And many things from the prophecy WERE the same with what Jesus did. Saying someone cannot be a messiah just because he wasn't born where a prophet said he would be born is a clear remaining of the dumb matherialism that was much present among the people at the time (along with not considering someone a saint if he doesn't have a yellow circle over his head).
Well, I never said it was undeniable proof. But as I said before with the census they would have had to have returned to Nazareth, so it is extremely likely that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, and was definitely not born in a stable. Yet that is the biggest commercial Jesus story of our time.
Quote:
By repeatedly rude I believe you mean John 2:4?
"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."
Malina and Rohrbaugh [Social-Science commentary, 299] add that such implication of distance was in fact quite proper in a society where men were expected to break the maternal bonds by a certain age. Jesus' reaction is entirely respectful and appropriate in this context.
Good enough as a response?
Sure, it's great. Shows that Jesus is allowed to be rude to women just because everybody else was doing it.
He may be the Messiah, but doesn't mean he can't succumb to peer pressure.
Quote:
I didn't quite get you there.
How can a child's birth be a shock ffs? They have 9 months to prepare... :/
Play fair. I meant pregnancy.
Quote:
Quote:
-In Matthew 15:21-28 we read the contempt for a canaanite woman who asked for help, saying he would not waste his energy on a non-jew
1) He helped the woman in the end.
That makes it alright does it?
Quote:
2) The christian church might've put that part in later to "show" that those who don't belong to them (aka those of other religions) must prove their worthiness greatly, and take their religion, to receive their aid. Such parts are not unusual in the new testament, as it has been edited several times by the Church to suit their needs.
They might have. Either way it undermines the bible.
Quote:
Jesus or that person tell people about it? Stories spread quickly.
Again, that does not make for an account of what was said or what happened. It makes for a story of what Jesus wanted to tell them or what they wanted to write down.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 07:06 AM |
|
|
Tenaka:
Quote:
Love thy Neighbour
Does anybody have a problem with that? No, I didn't think so...
Yes.
Because when it was written it literally meant "Love another Jew"
@Consis:
Quote:
Just love em! TitaniumAlloy killed me with saying that 50% of America's electorate was comprised of people who take the bible literally. I almost died laughing.
My bad, the most recent Gallup survey indicated a measly one-third of the electorate take the bible literally.
I must have been using an old survey.
One Third of Americans believe the Bible to be literally true
by the same token
Majority of Republicans doubt the Theory of Evolution
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Tenaka
Famous Hero
Makes sense
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 11:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I love how people worship the New Testament as if it brings in so many original ideas.
"Don't cause harm" and "love thy neighbour" (in fact, love thy neighbour back then meant love another jew)... Morals such as these existed before anyone wrote any book. Just no one listened to them. And they still don't.
Let's stop for a moment and think about what the bible abtually is...The base of an entire religion...Of course no one listens to it...Very logical...Come on, even if they existed already, and even if no one listens to them, then you can't admit that it's right...Besides, following your reasoning, let's say that the bible tells you to hate gay people...Well, does everone? I think there are lately less and less problems...See? No one listens to it...So it doesn't matter!
Quote:
Yes.
Because when it was written it literally meant "Love another Jew"
Read the underlined parts, the reread my first post...
____________
Houseism of the week:
As fascinating as our bodies are, they're also stupid.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 12:31 PM |
|
|
@Antipaladin
Ok, that's a bit radical...
@TA
JESUS CHRIST, MAN, FIND A LIFE Sorry... No pun intended, it just frightens me when I see another 50 mile long post that I have to answer to... Eats up at least half an hour of my time.
Ahem. Anyways.
Quote:
I love how people worship the New Testament as if it brings in so many original ideas.
I love how atheists spit on the New Testament and still refuse to try to understand it since they can't accept any other opinion on the matter.
Quote:
I could write a book called 'you shouldn't call people names' or 'you shouldn't rate threads to delete', nothing would change, and it certainly wouldn't be worthy of worship.
Perhaps that would be cause you didn't give everything you have and you didn't sacrifice yourself in order to bring that goal to people.
What Jesus did was admirable and you cannot deny that.
Quote:
Either you discard the entire Old Testament, or you follow it all. Most christians do the latter.
You can't choose what passages you wish to follow, that's like making up your own religion.
A person's religion is his own matter. You can understand and even accept someone's philosophy without believing what they believe.
Discarding anything before looking into it is rather ignorant. Or better put, it's just plain dumb.
I don't discard the Old Testament. I look upon it as a work of art. It's, like I said, mythology. Some stories in it have a point, some were meant to bring order to an ancient society, and some are legends.
That's if someone told you that if you read Greek mythology you accept it as your religion. Like I said many times before: wtf.
Quote:
In the lost gospels he did say that the old testament god was different.
There you go then.
Quote:
So people who wanted to follow Christianity were pressed with the following decision;
Either abandon their family entirely to follow Jesus
or
Abandon Jesus entirely to stay with their family, and probs go to hell.
"Who wanted to follow Christianity"? Dude. Seriously now. Work on understanding things before posting them here with the intention to stone Jesus.
Not those who wanted to follow CHRISTIANITY, he only said that to those who followed CHRIST on his perilous travels. The apostles for example.
Those who didn't follow him directly, but did follow his teachings, were all promised salvation.
From now on please check some things from all angles before calling Jesus an evil cultist.
Quote:
Makes me wonder how much of the bible you actually do understand.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make up the one God...
Lol, I don't understand it?
Even if the book of creation it is seen that God consults with someone, and those aren't angels. So, what, he has a split personality?
Along with Jesus, who called upon his Father so many times?
Does that seem rational to you?
Quote:
Forgetting the fact that if Adam's sin was attoned for, why do men still toil the fields, women still have terrible pain in childbirth, and we still don't have that damn eternal life.
Because the story of Adam and Eve didn't really happen?
Cause it was a legend?
That never crossed your mind?
Quote:
You tell me to read the book carefully yet you do not speak on behalf of the scriptures, you seem to be defending Jesus, not the bible, and you seem to have avoided the question; If god wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment- thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as 'Christ-killers': did that hereditary sin pass down in the semen too?
The point wasn't in WHO killed Jesus. Romans, Jews, Egyptians, Celts, Vikings, Iroquis, it DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that humanity can realise its mistakes only through blood. It's not about God being cruel, but the mankind being such.
Jesus also spoke about the future sins because he knew how much more people are going to be butchered by false prophets until humanity finally realises its true point. He forgives the future sins of people who will be mislead by them, but still he says how the hypocrites (those of his time and those of the future - those who control the masses) will attone greatly for their deeds.
Who condemned and killed Jews for stuff about Jesus? Hitler. I believe you are alluding to him. Hitler, who was a madman, and killed, say, Russians, and other people, as much as Jews. Trust me, Hitler didn't kill Jews cause they murdered Jesus (it's not like Hitler was much of a christian himself). He killed them because they were his political enemies and because he was, well, plain insane. In fact, Jewish people of today are among the most powerful world-wide. I don't see anything bad about that.
Quote:
Why does it need to be sealed in whips and blood and betrayal?
Because that is our way, my friend. Humanity is sick, back-stabbing, perverted and sado-masochist. Jesus just wanted us to drop those ways. But we didn't want to. At least not yet.
Quote:
So Jesus takes it out on mankind? What are you saying?
I am saying he took it out on mankind, but not in a way you thought by "taking it out". You thought of it as bringing some future punishment upon them, while he was trying to save them and show them where they're wrong.
That goes for your next quote too.
Quote:
You seem to be saying that the Jews aren't persecuted for killing Jesus, but then you go on to say 'The Church killed him.' That's exactly who did it.
They killed him, and Judas betrayed him (whether or not that was intentional is up to you), and they get the blame.
YES. The CHURCH. NOT THE PEOPLE, BUT ORGANIZED RELIGION. Come on dude, can it really be that you can't undestand that?!
Quote:
Again, you defend Jesus, not the Bible. What's the thread title again?
Jesus is the main character in the Bible, I believe you'll agree. Bible is just his written teachings. I defend both Jesus and the Bible.
Quote:
Perhaps if you toned down the sarcasm a little and actually knew as much about the bible as you claim to, you would know that its not a few days later, but Matthew is indicating that it was at least 40 days later.
A direct contradiction that disrupts the credibility of The Bible. Not Jesus per se.
Tone down my sarcasm... Yes... I tried... But I can't, it's a separate living being. One day it's going to get out of me and go on a rampage as a sarcasm elemental.
What is 40 days for a man's life? The Bible isn't a biographical but a philosophical book. When his family moved is simply a detail and doesn't have anything to do with his teachings.
The historical credibility of the Bible is shaken enough by the fact that it has been censored and edited for more than a thousand years. We're lucky the point can still be seen.
Quote:
Miscalculated a year? Oh, how wrong you can be.
This triangulation of dates gives the most detailed description of time out of anywhere in the bible, and it is utterly wrong. Luke claims that those three events happened at the same time, yet they are definitely not even within years of each other (how can you get that wrong?), but some of them may not have even existed. Which also brings back to the point about why Mary and Joseph would have had to have been in Nazareth, if there was a census.
Ok, those three dates are inaccurate. There can be a hole in the prophecy. So the prophecy wasn't completely direct and true... I already explained that - about Jesus using the prophecy to bring his teachings to people, since a complete, day-to-day accurate prophecy can never be made by a human - but since I really don't have time to explain all of that again, one more point for you. Now you have 2.
Quote:
Well, I don't know that much, but I know they believe that they have an ethereal form called a thetan, and can leave their physical body to go to another place. Which is exactly what Jesus asks Judas to do here.
Not only that, but it depicts Jesus as not even the son of god, but the son of Seth, grandson of Seth and leader of the Sethites... weird. Good thing they cut it out of the bible
Thetan is a measure of alien souls concentrated in a human body.
I don't really see the difference between calling the higher being God, Seth or anything. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well call it Professor Fizwizzle. I don't think that if an upper being exists, it really makes a difference how we call it.
About hiding the thing about Sethites, consider who did that... Of course the Church didn't want to acknowledge its enemies as rightful. There can be a lot of conspiracy theories about that but no matter how fun and interesting they are, we can't find out the definite truth unfortunately.
Quote:
Sure, it's great. Shows that Jesus is allowed to be rude to women just because everybody else was doing it.
I will repeat one part.
1. The term here is "Jesus' normal, public way of addressing women" (John 4:21, 8:10, 19:26, 20:31; Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12). It is also a common address in Greek literature, and never has the intent of disrespect or hostility. [Brow.GJ, 99].
2. The same term is used in Josephus Antiquities 17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife. [Beas.J, 34]
I don't see the rudeness in that...
Quote:
Play fair
Oh alright... You big baby
Quote:
They might have. Either way it undermines the bible.
The Bible of today. I support the first Bible, with ALL the gospels and everything. The version of today is it's mere shadow, but even in a shadow we can recognize the contours of the true shape.
Quote:
Again, that does not make for an account of what was said or what happened. It makes for a story of what Jesus wanted to tell them or what they wanted to write down.
Perhaps. Jesus always talked in stories and metaphores, and most of them didn't really happen. Perhaps that was the case in a few Bible stories. Jesus strongly believed that it was the point that mattered.
Oh yes, sorry for occasional sarcasm or harshness, I just get a bit moody sometimes No puns intended
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 02:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@TA
JESUS CHRIST, MAN, FIND A LIFE Sorry... No pun intended, it just frightens me when I see another 50 mile long post that I have to answer to... Eats up at least half an hour of my time.
Ahem. Anyways.
lol. actually I was stuck inside sick all day today
Quote:
Quote:
I love how people worship the New Testament as if it brings in so many original ideas.
I love how atheists spit on the New Testament and still refuse to try to understand it since they can't accept any other opinion on the matter.
now now Baklava
lets not get personal
Quote:
Perhaps that would be cause you didn't give everything you have and you didn't sacrifice yourself in order to bring that goal to people.
What Jesus did was admirable and you cannot deny that.
Ok if I did sacrifice myself in order to stop people from being mean then people would still do it...
Quote:
Quote:
So people who wanted to follow Christianity were pressed with the following decision;
Either abandon their family entirely to follow Jesus
or
Abandon Jesus entirely to stay with their family, and probs go to hell.
"Who wanted to follow Christianity"? Dude. Seriously now. Work on understanding things before posting them here with the intention to stone Jesus.
Not those who wanted to follow CHRISTIANITY, he only said that to those who followed CHRIST on his perilous travels. The apostles for example.
Those who didn't follow him directly, but did follow his teachings, were all promised salvation.
From now on please check some things from all angles before calling Jesus an evil cultist.
You seriously cannot have a sensible conversation can you?
Of course by following Christianity I mean following the teachings of Jesus.
And again, I'm not stoning anyone's carpenting jew. I'm talking about 'the bible', or is that being off topic?
Quote:
Lol, I don't understand it?
Even if the book of creation it is seen that God consults with someone, and those aren't angels. So, what, he has a split personality?
Along with Jesus, who called upon his Father so many times?
Does that seem rational to you?
Well, nothing in the bible is 'rational', but if you don't understand that the Father and the Son are one god then you have no idea, let alone be so proud of your achievements.
The holy trinity is the fundamental concept of Christianity, kind of like "Jesus 101"
Quote:
In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit.
Maybe you were sick that day.
And yes, you.
Quote:
Quote:
Forgetting the fact that if Adam's sin was attoned for, why do men still toil the fields, women still have terrible pain in childbirth, and we still don't have that damn eternal life.
Because the story of Adam and Eve didn't really happen?
Cause it was a legend?
That never crossed your mind?
Then why do we toil the fields and have disease? You seem more intent on making me seem wrong than actually responding to the ideas.
Regardless of the fact of whether or not there actually was a bloke called Adam, we're still being punished for forgiven sins.
Because in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent person.
Quote:
The point wasn't in WHO killed Jesus. Romans, Jews, Egyptians, Celts, Vikings, Iroquis, it DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that humanity can realise its mistakes only through blood. It's not about God being cruel, but the mankind being such.
Jesus also spoke about the future sins because he knew how much more people are going to be butchered by false prophets until humanity finally realises its true point. He forgives the future sins of people who will be mislead by them, but still he says how the hypocrites (those of his time and those of the future - those who control the masses) will attone greatly for their deeds.
Quote:
Who condemned and killed Jews for stuff about Jesus? Hitler. I believe you are alluding to him.
Nah, that statements based on nothing. I never even mentioned Hitler. I tell you who condemns the Jews; the bible by portraying them as Christ-killers. How can you not see that?
Quote:
Quote:
Why does it need to be sealed in whips and blood and betrayal?
Because that is our way, my friend. Humanity is sick, back-stabbing, perverted and sado-masochist. Jesus just wanted us to drop those ways. But we didn't want to. At least not yet.
Well one could ask why god made us this way, but then we're back to square one. But as Paul said himself, there is no attonement without blood.
But progressive ethicists today find it hard to defend any kind of retributive theory of punishment, let alone a scapegoat theory- executing an innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty.
Quote:
I am saying he took it out on mankind, but not in a way you thought by "taking it out". You thought of it as bringing some future punishment upon them, while he was trying to save them and show them where they're wrong.
How is 'saving them and showing them where they're wrong', 'taking it out' on them? It's entirely different.
So that takes us back to the first post where you said he takes it out on humanity instead of the Jews and Judas, because you've completely misplaced the term.
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to be saying that the Jews aren't persecuted for killing Jesus, but then you go on to say 'The Church killed him.' That's exactly who did it.
They killed him, and Judas betrayed him (whether or not that was intentional is up to you), and they get the blame.
YES. The CHURCH. NOT THE PEOPLE, BUT ORGANIZED RELIGION. Come on dude, can it really be that you can't undestand that?!
Organized religion doesn't kill. The people in organized religion kill.
Quote:
Quote:
Again, you defend Jesus, not the Bible. What's the thread title again?
Jesus is the main character in the Bible, I believe you'll agree. Bible is just his written teachings. I defend both Jesus and the Bible.
Well first you call the entire Old Testament a myth.
So no, you say 'ok maybe the bible was wrong in that instance but still Jesus is right'. You said it about the book of Revelations 'it wasn't written by Jesus', so what? It's still the bible. You said it about Jesus birth in Nazareth etc.
Quote:
What is 40 days for a man's life? The Bible isn't a biographical but a philosophical book. When his family moved is simply a detail and doesn't have anything to do with his teachings.
40 days is entirely different to 'leaving immediately'.
Quote:
one more point for you. Now you have 2.
I'm slowly catching up in this strange game of Bible-ball you're keeping score of.
Quote:
Thetan is a measure of alien souls concentrated in a human body.
I don't really see the difference between calling the higher being God, Seth or anything. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well call it Professor Fizwizzle. I don't think that if an upper being exists, it really makes a difference how we call it.
Sure, call him what you like.
Call him Professor Fizwizzle.
But if Professor Fizwizzle makes a robot called called, say, Frankenstien, and then Frankenstein has a son called Seth, and you pretend to be the son of Professor Fizwizzle's creation, then you are certainly not Professor Fizwizzle, regardless of whether it's called Seth or Willybobthornton.
Quote:
I will repeat one part.
1. The term here is "Jesus' normal, public way of addressing women" (John 4:21, 8:10, 19:26, 20:31; Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12). It is also a common address in Greek literature, and never has the intent of disrespect or hostility. [Brow.GJ, 99].
2. The same term is used in Josephus Antiquities 17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife. [Beas.J, 34]
I don't see the rudeness in that...
There were other instances. Jesus is notorious for it.
Quote:
Jesus strongly believed that it was the point that mattered.
In which case he could have written the bible in one sentence;
DONT DO BAD OR ELSE HELL!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's stop for a moment and think about what the bible abtually is...The base of an entire religion...Of course no one listens to it...Very logical...Come on, even if they existed already, and even if no one listens to them, then you can't admit that it's right...Besides, following your reasoning, let's say that the bible tells you to hate gay people...Well, does everone? I think there are lately less and less problems...See? No one listens to it...So it doesn't matter!
1. It's the base of three religions.
2. People may walk the walk but hardly anyone talks the talk, because, well, we're human, and what the bible calls 'deadly sin' is just evolutionary traits built into us like sexual need and hunger.
As Sam Harris put in his Letter to a Christian Nation:
'Your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery.'
As you said yourself, the bible is so outdated that it has no more relevance today than any other novel, or as one of Baklava's beloved myths.
The morals are outdated and the 10 commandments are just ridiculous.
We could easily adopt new ones, such as the 'New Commandments', but people don't want to because they're not sealed in blood:
-Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
-In all things, strive to cause no harm.
-Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
-Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
-Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
-Always seek to be learning something new.
-Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
-Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from the dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
-Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
-Question everything.
-Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever the inclinations, which are none of your business.
-Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race, or (as far as possible) species.
-Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.
-Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.
These values do not come from Christianity. They are common sense. We don't have need for an ancient text telling us what to do.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 03:25 PM |
|
|
You know what you said about how the bible is meaningful because Jesus Sacrificed himself? I think I'll worship Harry Potter, because he sacrificed himself so others could live. Or, I'll worship Aslan. Or, Joan of Arc. Sacrifice does not really mean so much, especially since it was done badly. Jesus had this whole healing power stuff, suposedly, so before he died, would it not have made sense to go around healing everybody and getting rid of some diseases permenantly and stuff? Just a thought.
Also, the old testament is so bloody sexist! I mean, it makes women like those people in cartoons who stand up and get hit with whatever object (thrown by some guy) was supposed to hit the other guy. The other guy sees his chance, throws something else, and the poor lady stands up and gets hit AGAIN! I mean, if he didn't want women to survive, then make only men! oh wait, no, god is sexist and hats homosexuals, so nope! Make something to avoid that horrible, terrible, earthshattering evil!!!!!!
I should point out that I've only read the bible in comic book format, but I go to church regularly enough to hear quite a lot of it. My church is annoying that they only read the goody goody, "Christ/God(bush) loves everyone, and you should love him" stories, ommiting the intresting parts about death and stuff.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
These values do not come from Christianity. They are common sense. We don't have need for an ancient text telling us what to do.
the interesting part is, that most of them are included in LeVay's Bible
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 05:24 PM |
|
|
@TA
I do not want to get into another Bible debate. I've had enough of that over at the RT. And there *is* a lot of value in the Bible, if only as a philosophical work. There's also a lot of crap in it. Some of which you have written I profoundly disagree with, and I'm not religious by any stretch of the imagination.
But I will say that your list of New Commandments - and the reasons you feel they are necessary - are just fabulous. If everyone could follow even half of them half of the time, this world would be a much better place. Many religious people act as if you need religion to be moral, or that only through religion can harmony be sustained, or that today's "bad world" - as if its any worse than any other time in history - is somehow related to the rise of atheism and growing skepticism of organized religion. But that's complete crap. Morality takes common sense and a care for society, and that's it. It doesn't come from God, or the Bible, or going to Church. It comes from parents who teach you when you are young what is right and what is wrong, and how to make good choices. Religion has nothing to do with it. The connection between religion and morality is imaginary. The sooner people realize this, and follow a moral code similar to that which you posted above, simply because it's the right thing to do, the better.
The funny thing to me is that many religious people like to paint atheists as immoral, depraved human beings that can't possibly have a code of ethics. Because they don't believe in God or, at the least, are skeptical of God, means they are going to Hell. But in fact, most agnostics and atheists that I know have a profound sense of right and wrong, and believe in doing the right thing because simply it *IS* the right thing, not because of some ephemeral supernatural reward (i.e., Heaven) or because a greated bearded man in the sky or a millenia-old book tells them how to behave. Also the athests' or agnostics' conception of morality, being not bound to any ancient inflexible religious dogma, is actually BETTER, because their moral code can accomodate changes in society, where the religious moral code can't. It is this inflexibility of religious morality the causes much grief in the world - although to be very fair, some religious sects are much better at rejecting moral rigidity than others. Ironically, to my mind the devoutly rigid religious who condemn the irreligious because they don't believe in God, irrespective of their sense of morality, don't understand the Bible's supposed message in the first place. If there is a God, I would think that He would tend to care much more that a person leads a good life and uses his brain to make moral choices that benefit society than that they blindly worship Him.
But that's just me.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
-Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
Pretty much the golden rule. However, I think it would be better in the positive, "Do for others what you would want them to do to you" because that translates into "Save a life, if you want to be saved" instead of "Don't kill if you don't want to be killed.
Quote:
-In all things, strive to cause no harm.
I think this is the best of your comandments, which are all good. So much better than thou shalt not kill, because there are cases where killing eliviates harm. Exelent.
Quote:
-Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
This kinda fits in with the first one, but still good to reinforce, especially since you mention "fellow living things" and "the world in general" so people do not think that they are restricted to only being nice to people.
Quote:
-Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
Another good one.
Quote:
-Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
I think this is another great commandment, because it is so simple, and yet modern society needs it. there is so much wonder in the world, even if you have to have a commandment to see it.
Quote:
-Always seek to be learning something new.
Good old one, and it would help with schools today.
Quote:
-Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
I like this, though it might be good to have some things to belive in, with or without facts, but people would simply not question those knowing the inevitable outcome.
Quote:
-Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from the dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
I don't get the censoring thing...could you retranslate? The second part is good.
Quote:
-Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
-Question everything.
Don't these both fit in with the "Test all things" one?
Quote:
-Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever the inclinations, which are none of your business.
That seems to be a rather well hidden way to say be nice to gay people. Plus, wouldn't this raise awkward questions if read to a sunday school? I would recomend changing it to "your own life" because that fits in with the joy and wonder thing, and allows lots of other things, such as freedom of religion, press, music or reading preferences, taking pictures, etc.
Quote:
-Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race, or (as far as possible) species.
Good, and the last bit will be handy when the Martians come and the cats reveal their until now hidden superintelligence.
Quote:
-Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.
some parents would find that difficult, and there are kids who would exploit that, but if propperly implemented it would raise the status of education.
Quote:
-Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.
Ah, global warming nay sayers, are you listening?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 10:30 PM |
|
|
|
Hat off for your list of commandments TA! Couldn't have said it any better myself
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 07, 2007 11:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know what you said about how the bible is meaningful because Jesus Sacrificed himself? I think I'll worship Harry Potter, because he sacrificed himself so others could live. Or, I'll worship Aslan.
Yes, there's just a tiny difference - they're fictional characters. Jesus did exist and was nailed to the cross.
Quote:
Or, Joan of Arc.
Joan of Arc was a warrior. But I won't be stopping you if you want to worship her.
Quote:
Jesus had this whole healing power stuff, suposedly, so before he died, would it not have made sense to go around healing everybody and getting rid of some diseases permenantly and stuff?
I didn't quite get you there.
According to the stories, he DID go around healing everybody
Quote:
Also, the old testament is so bloody sexist!
Yes. Yes it is. :/ I never denied that. That's one of the reasons Jesus disagreed with it.
@Corribus
Agree completely.
I don't want to get in a huge discussion either, I just wanted to talk about the New Testament's philosophy, not technicalities (and even technicalities can mostly be explained). But I guess it's my fault, I should've pointed that out immediately.
Now, at TA and his commandments.
"Baklava's beloved myths..." Yes, I do like those myths, but I never said it was a code of behaviour that should be looked today. In fact, I don't think any commandments are needed at all, the only thing that's needed is conscience. People with conscience will act good whether the commandments say so or not, and people without conscience don't really give a crap about commandments of that sort. So it's useless actually. But it's a good idea. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted August 08, 2007 12:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You know what you said about how the bible is meaningful because Jesus Sacrificed himself? I think I'll worship Harry Potter, because he sacrificed himself so others could live. Or, I'll worship Aslan.
Yes, there's just a tiny difference - they're fictional characters. Jesus did exist and was nailed to the cross.
That evidence comes from one book (or like, 23, if you get picky) but to date I see no evidence that he actually existed.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2007 02:48 AM |
|
|
TA's guidelines to life are great untill someone decides they don't like TA's guidelines and lives a little differently.
I see a whole bunch of utopia idealisms that fall flat on their face as soon as someone decides that they would rather be greedy and have a bigger piece of the pie. You can blame the Bible and religious people if you want, but the true culprit is and always has been sin. Unless the source of the disease is cured, then all of your ideas will fail. I bet if the people in this thread talking about love, tolerance, and such and such had people following them around 24/7 like they do to Britney Spears they'd have their children taken away from them and shamed into solitude.
The Bible addresses the problem of sin. Your guidelines are fine, but nobody is going to follow them. Your guidelines do not address the problem of sin.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
