Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


That's because in those days people associated culture to religion. In fact the religion did not change. people's cultures were getting in the way of it. The fact is that they did have a unity in faith. That unity in faith was that Jesus died for their sins along with his message. Whole communities were not rejected. A few out-there communities on the fringes of Christianity were. Most people just went there merry way onward. The council decided that the Old testament rules were for the old testament Jews and that non Jews could keep their culture and still believe. Thus people were more united because Jews and Gentiles had different cultures. The decided that as long as the culture was not extreme, like human sacrifices and ferries, that they weren't really that bad. They kept the message of Christ.

Re Gorman91

With the return of Djin, my own interest in the thread has been revived. And as you have finally got to a somewhat tangible point, I can re-address you again.

If I'm not wrong, you present a defense for your opinions through a kind of Darwinistic 'survival of the fittest'. The bible (presented in your idealized form of an unchangeable bible or whatever) has survived, as has 'real' christianity. So on these premises of yours the bible and 'true' christianity MUST be the real thing.

But then we have Jain, hinduism and buddhism being even older than any of the christianities and ALSO surviving, and according to your own principles, then they must be true.

So the quantity of time obviously can't be the decessive factor, if you want to defend your position at any cost.

I'm looking forward to more elaborations from you on this.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin

 

Mr Freeze is a clear work of fiction by around 30 writers. Jesus was a clear work of fact witnessed by thousands and known by many.

In the comic of import to us ie the gospels, how many of its' writers actually met the character ? The answer of course is none as we have previously discussed the earliest copies date to around 68-70 ad and combined with zero contemporaneous mention out side of these hearsay text destroys the case.

But again "by your reasoning" if the 30 writers of Batman make the claim that the character was real the fact that Batman talks to Mr Freeze makes Mr Freeze real.

reply to post by The Djin


Not so. 60-70 ad is perfectly within reasonable time for the person to have witnessed the events. But thw writers were men who could write listening to them, not the actual people, as I recall. But again, this is not enough time for corruptions to occur.

And no, the same logic does not apply to batman. because batman never did any miracles and has changed within one generation. in fact there isn't even one batman anymore. In just 1 generation we already have batman of the year 2030, batman in 3 universes, time traveler Bruce Wayne, and enumerable other ones. As I said, this is clear it was made by man. It changed.

reply to post by bogomil


Those religions have changed, and changed quite the bit. As I said a long time ago, the only near-comparison would be the Quran and Islam. And the reason for that is, like Christianity, it was written down very fast. However there are some signs that it has changed between Mohammad's life and the people whom wrote it down. very little evidence, but it is there. And according to my own belief, God promised their ancestors that they would be the leader of great nations as well as the Jews, and that God has plans for them. What those plans are I cannot say, but the fact that this is in fact true today I feel is no coincidence.

reply to post by Gorman91


who ACTUALLY witnessed the alleged jesus ? all accounts were written after the alleged fact by 3rd parties

and if you want to claim " facts " of your alleged jesus - please explain matt 27:62/53

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Actually he was written about by people recording the words of illiterate 1st person accounts. These from the gospels. And as the gospels show, there isn't any real change. Even in the heretical ones, the words are mostly the same for the parts that intersect.

As for Jesus rising for the dead, I believe he did. The point here is if Jesus really lived. If he rose from the dead is a matter of faith. But all parties say he did from all heretical, orthodox, and catholic sources, except for maybe 1 or 2 out there claims I'm not remembering right now.

reply to post by Gorman91

things made by men don't last. Things made by God do

THINGS THAT DON'T LAST

Youth

Cream

Gastric wind

Stars

Dinosaurs

Erections

Generations


Tsunamis

Plague

Daybreak

Miscarriage

Today

Suprise

Re gorman91

more specific to your post 02:58 PM. You wrote:

["Whole communities were not rejected. A few out-there communities on the fringes of Christianity were."]

A 'few communities' means laying northern Spain, southern France, Northern Italy, parts of Jugoslavia waste (killing 2-5 million people according to pro- or non-pro christian sources).

Quote: [" Most people just went there merry way onward."]

With 'most people' you mean the survivors?

And then there were the Baltic crusades later, which even didn't have an official excuse, but were purely missionary.

And after that the rule of (I believe the dominicans) of South America, with an undecided amount of killed natives.

And the evangelization of Greenland, which it still suffers from.

And the present price-tag christianity in Africa.

You surely have some convincing selling points.

reply to post by ignorant_ape

and if you want to claim " facts " of your alleged jesus - please explain matt 27:62/53

And to make matters a little more intriguing --

Barabbas, according to Greek texts bar-Abbas, (Aramaic: בר-אבא, Bar-abbâ, "SON OF THE FATHER"

reply to post by Gorman91

As for Jesus rising for the dead, I believe he did. The point here is if Jesus really lived. If he rose from the dead is a matter of faith

You know it's bloody hard work getting to this place with you guys, and we'll have to do it all over again tomorrow

reply to post by The Djin


God has control over those things. men do not.


reply to post by bogomil


Weren't those perpetrated by a very power hungry church that had become more a political entity and completely ignoring their own faith? Didn't some folks in the North break off and go back to the right way after enough anger?

Not to mention most of these things you mention took place eons after the councils. I certainly do not southerners today for slavery.

reply to post by Gorman91

And no, the same logic does not apply to batman. because batman never did any miracles and has changed within one generation

Get a grip Batman did lots of miracles, he could control bats ! Jesus couldn't control bats, although there was an occasion when he was dressed as Yahwhe and he got some female bears to rip some children to shreds for being spiteful to a bald man, I suppose I could give you that .

reply to post by The Djin


Not the batman(s) I knew. And that just goes to show you that only one generation later, batman has no clear consensus. It's already in a million pieces. No core message even. You're batman could control bats. My batman was a rich dude with a sexy voice.

See what I mean? never lasted. Not even some core truth. Besides the name batman, that is.

Gorman91 post 03:13 PM

Quote (relating to buddhism and hinduism):

["Those religions have changed, and changed quite the bit."]

Into 34.000 different denominations like christianity?

Different subject......Quote: ["And the reason for that is, like Christianity, it was written down very fast."]

As far as I know some buddhist scripture was written in Buddha's own lifetime.

Quote: [" And according to my own belief....]

You see, your probably evaluate your own belief much, much higher than your critics do, so it's not really a selling point in any way.

Quote: ["What those plans are I cannot say, but the fact that this is in fact true today I feel is no coincidence."]

You don't know the plans, but you know the fact that it is a fact true today. Are you still experimenting with pseudo-logic or is this a new faculty in you, making it possible for you to present absolute truth?

I have refound my joy in swapping posts with you.

reply to post by Gorman91

See what I mean? never lasted. Not even some core truth. Besides the name batman

And a nice segue into the other Jesii -

So, jesu is to be found at Talpiot in a tomb, but no doubt you'll give us ten pages of how this could not possibly be your man

O God they are now on Batman! Well catwoman look s hot in the new film. ANyway Xtians anre not becoming pariah . A few clueless evangelical atheists are claiming an immoral victory but they are of no consequence. I say live and let live. Perhaps the xtians can run the alpha course course again and wack the numbers up. Anyway as a pagan I have no dog in that race.

reply to post by Gorman91

batman has no clear consensus.

He has a batmobile

He's got bat ears

A utility belt

gotham city

Albert

wayne mansion

The Bat Signal

Re Djin

You wrote:

["You know it's bloody hard work getting to this place with you guys, and we'll have to do it all over again tomorrow"]


I can only agree with you, that there seems to be an excessive amount of undecessiveness, and when asked about this you get undecessive answers on the undecessiveness.

It could be explained as a 'tire-out-opposition' tactics. It could also from a less conspiracy-oriented perspective be confusion, due to getting lost in in models of existence as free-floating narration.

reply to post by bogomil


What honestly makes those dominations different? Who leads the church? How to spend your money? I was told young that it's pathetic what divides them. I decided to go and see. I cannot honestly find much difference amongst most of them. The difference is in attitude, not faith. They all believe more or less the same thing. Orthodox just believe in much more stricter behavior, Catholics rely way to heavily on cultural and grandfather clause elements, and the Protestants are for more "glass half full" type. As a catholic I've been welcomed nicely to the protestant communities and the very few orthodox I've met, mainly my family from that area, are just more "glass half empty" types.

The only thing that sets them apart is that they still carry cultural elements brought from ancient times when the church leaned too much a certain way.

The Bhuddist divided very shortly after his death and continued to break apart into increasingly different systems. You have atheistic ones, ones who believe Buddha was a great prophet or god, even though he said not to think of him like that, you have those whom believe as he actually preached, etc etc. These are quite large differences.

I actually look into and criticism my own faith and many faiths. I'll admit I know more on a few than others. I'm still exploring them. But from what I've learned, my beliefs are true.

You never said how I was pseudo scientific nor what's changed. I'm not really changing in how I post or answer. maybe you're finally reading them? I don't know. My beliefs state clearly that the ancestor of those whom call to the Muslim faith were promised to lead great nations and be a great people. It's happened. And I can't view that as coincidence.