It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Did Jesus Really Make A Sacrifice?
page: 9share:
reply to post by purplemer
sacrificing a human does not absolve personal responsiblity - The essense of morality.
Vicarious redemption - Scapegoating sin onto another living being is not something i would reccommend.
sacrificing a human does not absolve personal responsiblity - The essense of morality.
Vicarious redemption - Scapegoating sin onto another living being is not something i would reccommend.
reply to post by Griffo
Ha! Okay this is a fun one. First let me say I agree with the research you made in regards to the origins of "easter." On that account you are 100% correct as to what "easter" is all about, however, "easter" doesn't apply to the point you or the writer of the article are trying to make because Jesus' death is not linked to this pagan tradition, in fact, if you investigate enough you will find that His death didn't take place in this time of the year (later on the Catholic church adopted the pagan easter and used it as if was the time of death of Jesus). So no point is made here to support your idea.
Second... Zombies? One quick and simple answer to your question: If you don't believe that the Bible is G-d's word then that's fine, I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise so let's put that to the side. One thing may scholars do agree on (whether they believe in G-d, religion, etc, or whether don't believe) is that the Bible IS a historic book that tells the historical events that took place during the periods it was written. Now whether the historians that wrote the Bible believe in Jesus as being the Son of G-d or not, is irrelevant, the point here is they were still telling historical events they saw and that many others saw.
If you know the context of their culture, many of the people who wrote the Bible were not only "religious" but their jobs as writers was to not only write things they felt or saw but also they were required to ask around, do research, interview others (I'm not making this up so I'll invite you to actually research this on your own you see can see what I'm talking about, just don't investigate it from a religious perspective or you will get frustrated).
In other words, the contemporary historians you are wondering about happen to be those who actually wrote the Bible, regardless of their religious believes, this was part of their job.
Finally, the fact that you don't see Jesus death a resurrection as a sacrifice only shows the truth about you, me, and every person that is breathing air in this planet, when someone else is the one sacrificing something, is easy for the rest of us to discard it.
Let me ask you this. Lets say that you are the father of two children and your family is going through some financial hardships. Let's say today you can only afford to feed either one adult (you) or your two children, it is one or the other. So you decide to not eat today because you know you have more physical resistance and because you know that for sure in a week you will be able to go find food for yourself, so therefore instead you decide to make a "sacrifice" a feed your children and starve yourself for a week. Is this not a sacrifice? The fact that you had to experience starvation for a week is not a sacrifice to your health now or in the long run?
Now, I would say that the comparison between starving for a week and taking a huge beat up while being humiliated in front of crowds and then left hung to die won't fall under the same category but hopefully you'll get my drift.
Ha! Okay this is a fun one. First let me say I agree with the research you made in regards to the origins of "easter." On that account you are 100% correct as to what "easter" is all about, however, "easter" doesn't apply to the point you or the writer of the article are trying to make because Jesus' death is not linked to this pagan tradition, in fact, if you investigate enough you will find that His death didn't take place in this time of the year (later on the Catholic church adopted the pagan easter and used it as if was the time of death of Jesus). So no point is made here to support your idea.
Second... Zombies? One quick and simple answer to your question: If you don't believe that the Bible is G-d's word then that's fine, I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise so let's put that to the side. One thing may scholars do agree on (whether they believe in G-d, religion, etc, or whether don't believe) is that the Bible IS a historic book that tells the historical events that took place during the periods it was written. Now whether the historians that wrote the Bible believe in Jesus as being the Son of G-d or not, is irrelevant, the point here is they were still telling historical events they saw and that many others saw.
If you know the context of their culture, many of the people who wrote the Bible were not only "religious" but their jobs as writers was to not only write things they felt or saw but also they were required to ask around, do research, interview others (I'm not making this up so I'll invite you to actually research this on your own you see can see what I'm talking about, just don't investigate it from a religious perspective or you will get frustrated).
In other words, the contemporary historians you are wondering about happen to be those who actually wrote the Bible, regardless of their religious believes, this was part of their job.
Finally, the fact that you don't see Jesus death a resurrection as a sacrifice only shows the truth about you, me, and every person that is breathing air in this planet, when someone else is the one sacrificing something, is easy for the rest of us to discard it.
Let me ask you this. Lets say that you are the father of two children and your family is going through some financial hardships. Let's say today you can only afford to feed either one adult (you) or your two children, it is one or the other. So you decide to not eat today because you know you have more physical resistance and because you know that for sure in a week you will be able to go find food for yourself, so therefore instead you decide to make a "sacrifice" a feed your children and starve yourself for a week. Is this not a sacrifice? The fact that you had to experience starvation for a week is not a sacrifice to your health now or in the long run?
Now, I would say that the comparison between starving for a week and taking a huge beat up while being humiliated in front of crowds and then left hung to die won't fall under the same category but hopefully you'll get my drift.
reply to post by awake_and_aware
A) You can't prove Jesus existed.
1a) You can't prove he didn't exist. It is highy unlikely that the whole Roman Empire would have been turned on its head in 300 years to a fictious character.
B) You can't prove the immaculate conception
2b) I do not agree with the immaculate conception. I believe this is a product of Christianity compromising with other religious beliefs of the time to increase their numbers. Mainly Mithraism. Jesus and all his brothers and sisters were made and born just like every other baby before and since.
C) You can't prove that his "ressurection" was a miracle and not just a mistake. (Same with water to wine etc.)
3c)Here is another mistake in my opinion. The belief that his physical body was ressurected is wrong. He showed us the form we are to be in, in the worlds to come. A state between physical and spiritual. That is why he directed Mary not to touch him.
D) You can't prove Jesus is divine, or that God exists if we consider A, B and C true.
4d) Again, you can't prove he wasn't divine. He was human and divine. His life on Earth was a rite of passage of sorts. Similar to the TV show "Undercover Boss" Jesus was living a life as a human so he could better understand humans. It is impossible to seperate his divine nature from his personality, so some "miracles" happened. Generally when his heart was touched by the suffering he saw the divine mind was moved with compassion and the desire of the Son happened. Kind of like Neo in the Matrix. He's done things that have never been attributed to any other human in history. The sundown healing of over 500 people. The feeding of 5000. Curing blindness from several people to name a few.
A) You can't prove Jesus existed.
1a) You can't prove he didn't exist. It is highy unlikely that the whole Roman Empire would have been turned on its head in 300 years to a fictious character.
B) You can't prove the immaculate conception
2b) I do not agree with the immaculate conception. I believe this is a product of Christianity compromising with other religious beliefs of the time to increase their numbers. Mainly Mithraism. Jesus and all his brothers and sisters were made and born just like every other baby before and since.
C) You can't prove that his "ressurection" was a miracle and not just a mistake. (Same with water to wine etc.)
3c)Here is another mistake in my opinion. The belief that his physical body was ressurected is wrong. He showed us the form we are to be in, in the worlds to come. A state between physical and spiritual. That is why he directed Mary not to touch him.
D) You can't prove Jesus is divine, or that God exists if we consider A, B and C true.
4d) Again, you can't prove he wasn't divine. He was human and divine. His life on Earth was a rite of passage of sorts. Similar to the TV show "Undercover Boss" Jesus was living a life as a human so he could better understand humans. It is impossible to seperate his divine nature from his personality, so some "miracles" happened. Generally when his heart was touched by the suffering he saw the divine mind was moved with compassion and the desire of the Son happened. Kind of like Neo in the Matrix. He's done things that have never been attributed to any other human in history. The sundown healing of over 500 people. The feeding of 5000. Curing blindness from several people to name a few.
reply to post by macario
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the phrase contemporary historian. A contemporary historian is a person who recorded the event when it actually happened. The life of Jesus was only written down 50-60 years after his death with no direct eye witnesses, then translated and edited over and over for 2,000 years to now be accepted as fact. No corroborating evidence can be found historically outside the bible itself.
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the phrase contemporary historian. A contemporary historian is a person who recorded the event when it actually happened. The life of Jesus was only written down 50-60 years after his death with no direct eye witnesses, then translated and edited over and over for 2,000 years to now be accepted as fact. No corroborating evidence can be found historically outside the bible itself.
reply to post by Griffo
These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:
1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus’ life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.
The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.
Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.
Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.
3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”
As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.
4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus’ work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.
All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul’s theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Earth for almost two thousand years.
These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:
1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus’ life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.
The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.
Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.
Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.
3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”
As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.
4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus’ work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.
All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul’s theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Earth for almost two thousand years.
reply to post by UB2120
Alright OK, maybe I got it slightly wrong. There was one eye witness that contributed to the writings of Mark's gospel. That doesn't mean that it is any more valid though. Eye witnesses are the lowest form of evidence you can possibly get. Bearing in mind this was still written quite a long time after Jesus' supposed death and in an age where the majority of the people were ignorant to science and believed in superstition, it makes it entirely unreliable.
It is hard for a person in this day and age to remember with precise detail things that happened in the past. I'm only 21, and I have a hard time remembering things from even 10 years ago. Imagine back in 60 AD, when people still believed that earthquakes and lightening was god's wrath, trying to remember an event that happened 30 odd years in the past. It is obviously going to be filled with inaccuracies and logical fallicies
Alright OK, maybe I got it slightly wrong. There was one eye witness that contributed to the writings of Mark's gospel. That doesn't mean that it is any more valid though. Eye witnesses are the lowest form of evidence you can possibly get. Bearing in mind this was still written quite a long time after Jesus' supposed death and in an age where the majority of the people were ignorant to science and believed in superstition, it makes it entirely unreliable.
It is hard for a person in this day and age to remember with precise detail things that happened in the past. I'm only 21, and I have a hard time remembering things from even 10 years ago. Imagine back in 60 AD, when people still believed that earthquakes and lightening was god's wrath, trying to remember an event that happened 30 odd years in the past. It is obviously going to be filled with inaccuracies and logical fallicies
reply to post by Griffo
I can agree with the statement of having inaccuracies and logical fallacies. You may not remember exact events you did with a friend 10 years ago, but you would remember the friend. The bible, unfortunately, does not have very much of Jesus' real teachings. The entire time Jesus was with his apostles he was trying to break them away from their old beliefs. When he was no longer with them they quickly fell back into those beliefs. Plus the site of the resurrection (and I don't mean the physical body) so over awed them that it became the core of their preaching.
Also I said in my previous post, Luke's writings are a result of his interviewing scores of eyewitnesses. To me it makes sense that there is very little evidence of his existence. For one, he never wrote on anything permeate once he began his public ministry. He even went back to his childhood home and destroyed a few things he made. He knew that future generations would have drifted to relic worship if anything had survived. We kind of see that now. Supposedly the spear of destiny is the spear that pierced his side, and the shroud of Turin supposedly from his grave. There also have been reports of pieces of the cross surviving. I personally don't believe any of them are the real artifacts. Even if they were it doesn't do much for me.
I think you would have a different outlook on this story if you read a different account. Check out the Urantia Book ( www.urantia.org... ). It has a very different story of his life and teachings than are found anywhere else. You can even download audio book versions for free. I don't see how an imaginary person could have turned the whole Roman Empire on its head within 300 years if he wasn't real. Dozens of other religions had been a part of the empire for hundreds of years without causing issues.
Another thing to take into account is the reason Jesus came to this planet. He is a Creator Son of God and is trying to duplicate in time what God has created in eternity. So we were created by this Son of God. Of all his creation our planet was the worst off. Similar to the TV show "undercover boss" Jesus was born on this planet to gain full rule of his universe. He had to incarnate in the likeness of his various universe creatures, high and low, to earn the right to rule. So a vast majority of his life was him living the life of a human. He went to school, had friends, grew up and had a job and supported his family of his mother and 8 brothers and sisters once his father died. All the while showing to the universe how Man can seek God and at the same time God seeking Man. For he was truly human and divine, two becoming one. Once he reached the goal, he could have left the planet but wanted to help. So that is when his public ministry started. An all the world was forever blessed in those 4 years.
Another thing to consider is history is written by the winners. So being that the Jewish leaders wanted him dead and killed many of his followers I can see why records are not found. Christianity had a rough time for the first 100 years or so and I would imagine much was destroyed. Similar to what we see in Egypt. A new ruler comes to power and they go and try to erase the works of the previous ruler.
I can agree with the statement of having inaccuracies and logical fallacies. You may not remember exact events you did with a friend 10 years ago, but you would remember the friend. The bible, unfortunately, does not have very much of Jesus' real teachings. The entire time Jesus was with his apostles he was trying to break them away from their old beliefs. When he was no longer with them they quickly fell back into those beliefs. Plus the site of the resurrection (and I don't mean the physical body) so over awed them that it became the core of their preaching.
Also I said in my previous post, Luke's writings are a result of his interviewing scores of eyewitnesses. To me it makes sense that there is very little evidence of his existence. For one, he never wrote on anything permeate once he began his public ministry. He even went back to his childhood home and destroyed a few things he made. He knew that future generations would have drifted to relic worship if anything had survived. We kind of see that now. Supposedly the spear of destiny is the spear that pierced his side, and the shroud of Turin supposedly from his grave. There also have been reports of pieces of the cross surviving. I personally don't believe any of them are the real artifacts. Even if they were it doesn't do much for me.
I think you would have a different outlook on this story if you read a different account. Check out the Urantia Book ( www.urantia.org... ). It has a very different story of his life and teachings than are found anywhere else. You can even download audio book versions for free. I don't see how an imaginary person could have turned the whole Roman Empire on its head within 300 years if he wasn't real. Dozens of other religions had been a part of the empire for hundreds of years without causing issues.
Another thing to take into account is the reason Jesus came to this planet. He is a Creator Son of God and is trying to duplicate in time what God has created in eternity. So we were created by this Son of God. Of all his creation our planet was the worst off. Similar to the TV show "undercover boss" Jesus was born on this planet to gain full rule of his universe. He had to incarnate in the likeness of his various universe creatures, high and low, to earn the right to rule. So a vast majority of his life was him living the life of a human. He went to school, had friends, grew up and had a job and supported his family of his mother and 8 brothers and sisters once his father died. All the while showing to the universe how Man can seek God and at the same time God seeking Man. For he was truly human and divine, two becoming one. Once he reached the goal, he could have left the planet but wanted to help. So that is when his public ministry started. An all the world was forever blessed in those 4 years.
Another thing to consider is history is written by the winners. So being that the Jewish leaders wanted him dead and killed many of his followers I can see why records are not found. Christianity had a rough time for the first 100 years or so and I would imagine much was destroyed. Similar to what we see in Egypt. A new ruler comes to power and they go and try to erase the works of the previous ruler.
reply to post by UB2120
MY STATEMENT:
YOUR RESPONSE:
Indeed i can't - I'm not claiming there wasn't a man who existed around the time, i'm not claiming the character wasn't based upon a true man, the bible is claiming this - and i've been listenening ever since i recognised this claim.
I can't prove Socrates existed either, he wasn't asking me to follow him, or convert to his "way of thinking" in order to save myself from hellfire. (introduced in the New Testament, not the Old) - His words stand the test of reason, his words don't make any false promises or threats. His words don't judge - They speak for themselve -
Jesus has a lot of explaining to do with his preaching.
Also, i can borrow from Jesus words if i think they are moral or ethical enough. I'd sooner finder better modern literature that show a figure more kind and loving than Jesus, and less needy for everyone to live how he lives.
MY STATEMENT
YOUR RESPONSE:
I don't claim that Parthenogenesis is impossible, it's not unheard of in the wild, and there are many medical anomolies or "oddities"
Understand this - Even if we grant the immaculate conception as truth, it still doesn't affirm that he is "holy" or of "divine nature" or that his teachings are thereby moral or ethical.
MY STATEMENT:
YOUR RESPONSE:
A state between physical and spiritual? How woudl you tell? Can doctors work this out? Don't think so - I don't think that they'd conclude it was a "miracle".
And besides, ressurection wasn't uncommon at the time of "THE" Ressurection; even your bible affirms this;-
Matthew 27:52
Why would Jesus be divine, and not other people who had been "ressurected" at the time.?
MY STATEMENT:
YOUR RESPONSE:
These are the claims made by the bible, and you've proved multiple times above that they are "unfalsifiable." Why should the burden of proof be on me, or anyone else?
If you saw a man today claiming to be the son of God and you agreed with his preaching - Would you conclude that he was "divine" or "holy"?
Mistakes a made everyday by people who think they've experienced - Why should we consider this biblical account as truth again?
Spare me the semantics - Hell is an immoral preaching. It polarizes morality, what a wicked thing to suggest to a child and based upon no evidence. I don't care whether it's a pragmatic mistake. Hell is hell. People have taken this literally and seriously for years, and still do - They honestly believe they are going to suffer in eternity if they do not submit. THink about that fact.
And what's Ghandi? Martin Luther King? Were they "living a life as a human"?. C'mon - fictious analogy? - I know you can refute my points better than that. And there are other "kind and loving" figures throughtout history, not just the man that might have existed, or might not have. - REAL people, that we can proev exist and prove are kind and loving.
Name me one academic who's attested to such an event, name one historian, physicist, or any other endevour of truth to conclude that miracles occur?
The only "miracle" that there seems to be is the fact that there are no miracles - The sun doesn't miraculously stop in the sky, we don't just suddenly break free of the gravitation pull of reality.
I don't feel dishonest when i say "i don't believe in the temporary suspension of the natural order."
Generally when his heart was touched by the suffering he saw the divine mind was moved with compassion and the desire of the Son happened.
Again, so have many other martyrs and "do-goods" throughout history. Perhaps Jesus did exist, perhaps he did promote a conscious shift that was freedom fighting, perhaps not - But what makes him any different from any other liberty fighter? The fact that he's in a bible where God said so. Just because he was loving and kind in nature doesn't make him any holier than you or i. I'm sure you're a nice person, are you a God?
I love the Matrix, i'd sooner choose Neo over a character like Jesus
Believe what you want, but don't scare children with hellfire, don't tell them there's a man in the sky or that controls the universe, let them think for themselves, let them believe for themselves.
And many humans have done things that have never before been done in history (freedom of slaves? That happened once in America, for the first time.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - why not heal the whole world at sundown? I mean he's the son of the CREATOR OF ALL THAT IS - Why not cure everyone?
Please take your time to read my points, i've put rather a lot of effort into trying to show a different perspective, i'm being civil and polite.
Peace.
MY STATEMENT:
A) You can't prove Jesus existed
YOUR RESPONSE:
1a) You can't prove he didn't exist. It is highy unlikely that the whole Roman Empire would have been turned on its head in 300 years to a fictious character.
Indeed i can't - I'm not claiming there wasn't a man who existed around the time, i'm not claiming the character wasn't based upon a true man, the bible is claiming this - and i've been listenening ever since i recognised this claim.
I can't prove Socrates existed either, he wasn't asking me to follow him, or convert to his "way of thinking" in order to save myself from hellfire. (introduced in the New Testament, not the Old) - His words stand the test of reason, his words don't make any false promises or threats. His words don't judge - They speak for themselve -
Jesus has a lot of explaining to do with his preaching.
Also, i can borrow from Jesus words if i think they are moral or ethical enough. I'd sooner finder better modern literature that show a figure more kind and loving than Jesus, and less needy for everyone to live how he lives.
MY STATEMENT
B) You can't prove the immaculate conceptionp
YOUR RESPONSE:
2b)I do not agree with the immaculate conception. I believe this is a product of Christianity compromising with other religious beliefs of the time to increase their numbers. Mainly Mithraism. Jesus and all his brothers and sisters were made and born just like every other baby before and since.
I don't claim that Parthenogenesis is impossible, it's not unheard of in the wild, and there are many medical anomolies or "oddities"
Understand this - Even if we grant the immaculate conception as truth, it still doesn't affirm that he is "holy" or of "divine nature" or that his teachings are thereby moral or ethical.
MY STATEMENT:
C) You can't prove that his "ressurection" was a miracle and not just a mistake. (Same with water to wine etc.)
YOUR RESPONSE:
3c)Here is another mistake in my opinion. The belief that his physical body was ressurected is wrong. He showed us the form we are to be in, in the worlds to come. A state between physical and spiritual. That is why he directed Mary not to touch him.
A state between physical and spiritual? How woudl you tell? Can doctors work this out? Don't think so - I don't think that they'd conclude it was a "miracle".
And besides, ressurection wasn't uncommon at the time of "THE" Ressurection; even your bible affirms this;-
The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
Matthew 27:52
Why would Jesus be divine, and not other people who had been "ressurected" at the time.?
MY STATEMENT:
D) You can't prove Jesus is divine, or that God exists if we consider A, B and C true.
YOUR RESPONSE:
4d) Again, you can't prove he wasn't divine. He was human and divine.
These are the claims made by the bible, and you've proved multiple times above that they are "unfalsifiable." Why should the burden of proof be on me, or anyone else?
If you saw a man today claiming to be the son of God and you agreed with his preaching - Would you conclude that he was "divine" or "holy"?
Mistakes a made everyday by people who think they've experienced - Why should we consider this biblical account as truth again?
His life on Earth was a rite of passage of sorts.
Spare me the semantics - Hell is an immoral preaching. It polarizes morality, what a wicked thing to suggest to a child and based upon no evidence. I don't care whether it's a pragmatic mistake. Hell is hell. People have taken this literally and seriously for years, and still do - They honestly believe they are going to suffer in eternity if they do not submit. THink about that fact.
Similar to the TV show "Undercover Boss" Jesus was living a life as a human so he could better understand humans.
And what's Ghandi? Martin Luther King? Were they "living a life as a human"?. C'mon - fictious analogy? - I know you can refute my points better than that. And there are other "kind and loving" figures throughtout history, not just the man that might have existed, or might not have. - REAL people, that we can proev exist and prove are kind and loving.
It is impossible to seperate his divine nature from his personality, so some "miracles" happened.
Name me one academic who's attested to such an event, name one historian, physicist, or any other endevour of truth to conclude that miracles occur?
The only "miracle" that there seems to be is the fact that there are no miracles - The sun doesn't miraculously stop in the sky, we don't just suddenly break free of the gravitation pull of reality.
I don't feel dishonest when i say "i don't believe in the temporary suspension of the natural order."
Generally when his heart was touched by the suffering he saw the divine mind was moved with compassion and the desire of the Son happened.
Again, so have many other martyrs and "do-goods" throughout history. Perhaps Jesus did exist, perhaps he did promote a conscious shift that was freedom fighting, perhaps not - But what makes him any different from any other liberty fighter? The fact that he's in a bible where God said so. Just because he was loving and kind in nature doesn't make him any holier than you or i. I'm sure you're a nice person, are you a God?
Kind of like Neo in the Matrix. He's done things that have never been attributed to any other human in history.
I love the Matrix, i'd sooner choose Neo over a character like Jesus
Commander Lock: Dammit, Morpheus. Not everyone believes what you believe.
Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.
Believe what you want, but don't scare children with hellfire, don't tell them there's a man in the sky or that controls the universe, let them think for themselves, let them believe for themselves.
And many humans have done things that have never before been done in history (freedom of slaves? That happened once in America, for the first time.)
The sundown healing of over 500 people. The feeding of 5000. Curing blindness from several people to name a few.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - why not heal the whole world at sundown? I mean he's the son of the CREATOR OF ALL THAT IS - Why not cure everyone?
Please take your time to read my points, i've put rather a lot of effort into trying to show a different perspective, i'm being civil and polite.
Peace.
edit on 25/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
reply to post by awake_and_aware
I think you are taking me for a bible defender and I am not. I had a falling out with Christianity a long time ago. I personally follow the philosophies in the Urantia Book. www.urantia.org... It is quite a bit different from the bible and I recommend you check it out. Most all people I've met that bash God, Jesus or faith in general seem to have major issues with Christianity. In my opinion rightly so. I find the explanation of creation and our place in it much more plausible in the Urantia Book then anything else I’ve read in any other book to include science.
I am not trying to convert anyone, just trying to help as I was in a similar boat. I had answers that I could not find answer for and for a long time I was under the impression that Christianity was my only option. For many years I researched many of the religions of the world when I came across the Urantia Book. It worked for me, but it may not for you.
One thing I've learned is God compels no one to believe in him. We all have free will. You have the right not to believe, but don't short sell yourself by basing your opinions on just the bible. The bible is not the infallible word of God by any means. Actually neither is the Urantia Book.
Not sure why you make claims that I'm scaring people with hellfire and such. I've been trying to get people out of the mindset for years. If you have the desire to know what Jesus was really like, check out the life and teachings as portrayed in the Urantia Book. He never asked people to believe in him, but to believe with him. He taught about God, not himself. It was the mistakes of his apostles and later church leaders who lead Christianity down this dark road of fear and control.
I understand you spent some time on this response, so I will attempt to answer your counter answers and statements. I am new to ATS and not sure how you get posts to show quotes like you did, so sorry for not having them.
I don’t believe Jesus has any explaining to do concerning his preaching. I would agree with you if you exclusively use what is in the bible, but if you read what is in the Urantia Book you will see that he was very kind and understanding. He was constantly trying to break is apostles and disciples out of the old way of looking at God and he largely failed. His teachings were too much for them to take in. He had to teach and re-teach them, and when he realized they were not going to get it, he would try a different approach. That is why he ended up using parables. These simple stories would have one spiritual point to make and those who approached them with a spiritual mind could perceive it while others would only hear a story.
The immaculate conception. I don’t really have anything else to say. I’ve never believed that. The account of his birth in the Urantia Book states that he was made and born just like any other baby before or since. The family was chosen though. He appeared among the Jews because they were some of the most religious people in the world at the time and also held land that was in the center of the Roman Empire. The Jewish family life was also far above many of the surrounding peoples.
The resurrection. The Urantia Book puts it this way, what magic could death hold that would enable mortals to progress spiritually enough to make it to Heaven in a single step? Instead we must continue to grow and develop and that is what this next phase of existence is. Instead of experiencing this phase on the worlds to come, Jesus did it here on Earth. His associates could not recognize him, but once he began to speak they would. Science will never be able to prove anything beyond mortal existence. If scientist couldn’t see it with there own eyes they would never conclude a caterpillar could turn into a butterfly. There is much in the physical world science will never be able to prove what they are, like Gravity and Electricity to name a couple. Sure they know about them, but what are they, where to they come from? As you said, many tombs were broken open or people escaped who were alive. No one came out from the tomb after 3 days though and that was commonly known back then.
Concerning his divine nature, that is a matter of faith. If someone today claimed to be that I would have to withhold judgment until I could see the fruit of his labors. That is what many people did back then. The teachings he gave as portrayed in the Urantia Book are so far and above anything I’ve ever read from anyone else that you can see that he was something more than human. All I can say is check them out for yourself.
Not sure why you talked about hell, I never said anything about it other than it does not exist. I’ve never believed in hell and that was one of the many reasons I broke away from Christianity. I agree that it is very sad so many take those teachings seriously.
One thing that is taught in the Urantia is that all worlds of space have just one bestowal Son of God. Jesus was our one bestowal Son, he just happened to be a Creator Son and therefore had creator prerogatives. There have been and will be many prophets who helped mankind progress spiritually. One of the best examples is the 6th century before Jesus. All over the world there were many prophets: Gautama Siddhartha - founder of Buddhism, Lao-Tse and Confucius to name a few.
Concerning his miracles, as I said he is a Creator Son of Paradise so he has control of the physical laws of his space domains. Even if he lived today and submitted to testing nothing could be found in his physical person that would look different. His power is from the spiritual world of which the physical world is but a shadow of. You can judge the substance by the shadow. He also would not perform miracles on demand. His miracles were because he human heart was moved with compassion. Also always asked the beneficiary to “tell no man” and also that “your faith has made you whole”. There was only one healing he did that was not asked for and that was giving sight to a blind beggar in Jerusalem, and he did this so the Jewish authorities would call him before them.
Again, I’ve never said anything about hellfire so not sure where that came from. In the Urantia Book it talks many times about how most people sought healing for non-spiritual or non-religious reasons. An example is a rich widow who tried to buy her healing and Jesus refused. God’s works are not for hire.
I hope this clears up some of the apparent misconceptions you had about what I was trying to say. I look forward to your reply. Thanks
I think you are taking me for a bible defender and I am not. I had a falling out with Christianity a long time ago. I personally follow the philosophies in the Urantia Book. www.urantia.org... It is quite a bit different from the bible and I recommend you check it out. Most all people I've met that bash God, Jesus or faith in general seem to have major issues with Christianity. In my opinion rightly so. I find the explanation of creation and our place in it much more plausible in the Urantia Book then anything else I’ve read in any other book to include science.
I am not trying to convert anyone, just trying to help as I was in a similar boat. I had answers that I could not find answer for and for a long time I was under the impression that Christianity was my only option. For many years I researched many of the religions of the world when I came across the Urantia Book. It worked for me, but it may not for you.
One thing I've learned is God compels no one to believe in him. We all have free will. You have the right not to believe, but don't short sell yourself by basing your opinions on just the bible. The bible is not the infallible word of God by any means. Actually neither is the Urantia Book.
Not sure why you make claims that I'm scaring people with hellfire and such. I've been trying to get people out of the mindset for years. If you have the desire to know what Jesus was really like, check out the life and teachings as portrayed in the Urantia Book. He never asked people to believe in him, but to believe with him. He taught about God, not himself. It was the mistakes of his apostles and later church leaders who lead Christianity down this dark road of fear and control.
I understand you spent some time on this response, so I will attempt to answer your counter answers and statements. I am new to ATS and not sure how you get posts to show quotes like you did, so sorry for not having them.
I don’t believe Jesus has any explaining to do concerning his preaching. I would agree with you if you exclusively use what is in the bible, but if you read what is in the Urantia Book you will see that he was very kind and understanding. He was constantly trying to break is apostles and disciples out of the old way of looking at God and he largely failed. His teachings were too much for them to take in. He had to teach and re-teach them, and when he realized they were not going to get it, he would try a different approach. That is why he ended up using parables. These simple stories would have one spiritual point to make and those who approached them with a spiritual mind could perceive it while others would only hear a story.
The immaculate conception. I don’t really have anything else to say. I’ve never believed that. The account of his birth in the Urantia Book states that he was made and born just like any other baby before or since. The family was chosen though. He appeared among the Jews because they were some of the most religious people in the world at the time and also held land that was in the center of the Roman Empire. The Jewish family life was also far above many of the surrounding peoples.
The resurrection. The Urantia Book puts it this way, what magic could death hold that would enable mortals to progress spiritually enough to make it to Heaven in a single step? Instead we must continue to grow and develop and that is what this next phase of existence is. Instead of experiencing this phase on the worlds to come, Jesus did it here on Earth. His associates could not recognize him, but once he began to speak they would. Science will never be able to prove anything beyond mortal existence. If scientist couldn’t see it with there own eyes they would never conclude a caterpillar could turn into a butterfly. There is much in the physical world science will never be able to prove what they are, like Gravity and Electricity to name a couple. Sure they know about them, but what are they, where to they come from? As you said, many tombs were broken open or people escaped who were alive. No one came out from the tomb after 3 days though and that was commonly known back then.
Concerning his divine nature, that is a matter of faith. If someone today claimed to be that I would have to withhold judgment until I could see the fruit of his labors. That is what many people did back then. The teachings he gave as portrayed in the Urantia Book are so far and above anything I’ve ever read from anyone else that you can see that he was something more than human. All I can say is check them out for yourself.
Not sure why you talked about hell, I never said anything about it other than it does not exist. I’ve never believed in hell and that was one of the many reasons I broke away from Christianity. I agree that it is very sad so many take those teachings seriously.
One thing that is taught in the Urantia is that all worlds of space have just one bestowal Son of God. Jesus was our one bestowal Son, he just happened to be a Creator Son and therefore had creator prerogatives. There have been and will be many prophets who helped mankind progress spiritually. One of the best examples is the 6th century before Jesus. All over the world there were many prophets: Gautama Siddhartha - founder of Buddhism, Lao-Tse and Confucius to name a few.
Concerning his miracles, as I said he is a Creator Son of Paradise so he has control of the physical laws of his space domains. Even if he lived today and submitted to testing nothing could be found in his physical person that would look different. His power is from the spiritual world of which the physical world is but a shadow of. You can judge the substance by the shadow. He also would not perform miracles on demand. His miracles were because he human heart was moved with compassion. Also always asked the beneficiary to “tell no man” and also that “your faith has made you whole”. There was only one healing he did that was not asked for and that was giving sight to a blind beggar in Jerusalem, and he did this so the Jewish authorities would call him before them.
Again, I’ve never said anything about hellfire so not sure where that came from. In the Urantia Book it talks many times about how most people sought healing for non-spiritual or non-religious reasons. An example is a rich widow who tried to buy her healing and Jesus refused. God’s works are not for hire.
I hope this clears up some of the apparent misconceptions you had about what I was trying to say. I look forward to your reply. Thanks
edit on 26-5-2011 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2011 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by UB2120
I didn't take you for anything, I was just responding to your points.
Easily done. Criticisms of someone's religion often cause offense because it's centred around such profound beliefs or "faith".
Never heard of it, i'll check it out.
Mormonism is quite a bit different from the bible, likewise is Scientology which is not to say it is free from criticism either.
I understand the tactics they use to gain followers, such profound claims to truth.
In my experience, most Atheists i've debated have a problem with organised religion in general.
Agreed.
I'll check it out, although you include "science" as a "book" - science is a tool, a technique, science doesn't make any claims unless there is sufficient reason or rational to form one, and when it does, it's always challenged (Even the theories that turned out to be correct.)
Again, i'm always open to new material, i'll check it out.
NOTE: I was responding DIRECTLY to your response to my initial statements.. I had to expand for the benefit of people who know Christianity or believe the "story" of Jesus; My expansions relate to your responses.
I think you are taking me for a bible defender and I am not.
I didn't take you for anything, I was just responding to your points.
I had a falling out with Christianity a long time ago.
Easily done. Criticisms of someone's religion often cause offense because it's centred around such profound beliefs or "faith".
I personally follow the philosophies in the Urantia Book. www.urantia.org...
Never heard of it, i'll check it out.
It is quite a bit different from the bible and I recommend you check it out.
Mormonism is quite a bit different from the bible, likewise is Scientology which is not to say it is free from criticism either.
I understand the tactics they use to gain followers, such profound claims to truth.
Most all people I've met that bash God, Jesus or faith in general seem to have major issues with Christianity.
In my experience, most Atheists i've debated have a problem with organised religion in general.
In my opinion rightly so.
Agreed.
I find the explanation of creation and our place in it much more plausible in the Urantia Book then anything else I’ve read in any other book to include science.
I'll check it out, although you include "science" as a "book" - science is a tool, a technique, science doesn't make any claims unless there is sufficient reason or rational to form one, and when it does, it's always challenged (Even the theories that turned out to be correct.)
Again, i'm always open to new material, i'll check it out.
NOTE: I was responding DIRECTLY to your response to my initial statements.. I had to expand for the benefit of people who know Christianity or believe the "story" of Jesus; My expansions relate to your responses.
edit on 27/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
reply to post by awake_and_aware
I agree you were responding to my points, it just seemed you were adding topics in a way as to make it seem that I said those things when I did not. I just wanted to make that point.
One thing I've discovered is that truth is not afraid to face honest criticism. I think someone would be foolish to not express their honest criticisms about a religion or belief system. It is my opinion that no one should be made to accept something that does not make sense to them or is against their own moral or ethical beliefs.
I agree that many people have issues with organized religion and that is one thing I like about the Urantia Book community. There is not a hierarchy or priesthood or anything like that. No churches or specific holy sites. We all are simply students trying to understand God, the universe and our place in it, in our own way. Because in the last analyst anyone’s belief is between that person and God. There is no need for an in-between priesthood or anything like that. Not saying there isn’t room for teachers, they just need to teach and not presume to place themselves as the only channel to God.
What I meant to say is that the story of creation found in the Urantia Book is much more plausible than anything else I've found in other religions or science. I probably should have said science books or the explanation from science in my original post.
I certainly hope you do check out the Urantia Book and would like the say that there are sources online to download audio book versions as well. Please feel free to message me if you ever have any questions about the Urantia Book.
I agree you were responding to my points, it just seemed you were adding topics in a way as to make it seem that I said those things when I did not. I just wanted to make that point.
One thing I've discovered is that truth is not afraid to face honest criticism. I think someone would be foolish to not express their honest criticisms about a religion or belief system. It is my opinion that no one should be made to accept something that does not make sense to them or is against their own moral or ethical beliefs.
I agree that many people have issues with organized religion and that is one thing I like about the Urantia Book community. There is not a hierarchy or priesthood or anything like that. No churches or specific holy sites. We all are simply students trying to understand God, the universe and our place in it, in our own way. Because in the last analyst anyone’s belief is between that person and God. There is no need for an in-between priesthood or anything like that. Not saying there isn’t room for teachers, they just need to teach and not presume to place themselves as the only channel to God.
What I meant to say is that the story of creation found in the Urantia Book is much more plausible than anything else I've found in other religions or science. I probably should have said science books or the explanation from science in my original post.
I certainly hope you do check out the Urantia Book and would like the say that there are sources online to download audio book versions as well. Please feel free to message me if you ever have any questions about the Urantia Book.
reply to post by UB2120
Well thanks i really was, and just expanding to add more coherence to my initial statements. Also, it was for the benefit of anyone reading, not just yourself; As these are common arguments posed by many Theists. I'm not accusing you of being a Theist, again - only responding to your initial defense to my claims of proof regarding Jesus.
Of course, i believe science can't be progressive if we don't abide to just the above ^.
Indeed, freedom of speech etc. - I don't think religious dialogue is exempt from criticism for the same reason by political dialogue isnn't exempt from criticism. Religion is profound ideology that can change someone's thinking (and not always for the best, as you will have seen)
I'm starting to wonder what we disagree about?
Oh wait, this is the disagreement - I believe any profound metaphysical or supernatural claims formed without evidence should be treated with great suspicion, and great caution. When accounts cannot be falsified, there lies rooms for unauthentic preaching; fortune telling, talking to the dead, astrology; and most importantly religion. Anyone can make a God up. Many follows of "holy" doctrine are Athiests to other holy doctrine (or myth and legend)
I'm not condeming the study of the unknown, but what i am protesting is extraordinary claims that can't be backed up, and dishonest preaching about how the universe is or what the cause of it is. (metaphysical and supernatural claims)
Well that seems to be a good start.
No congregations or sabbath/holy day. That's another merit so far.
But we can't prove God, God is the unknown, what we don't understand, and most people want to understand what is unknown, whether it is "GOD" or something else. But let's not preach "GOD" as truth when we don't really know. Everyone wants to discover truth, what truth does the "Urantia Book" offer?
If God is a conscious being who is capable of judging. If you honestly believe that God would judge you because you coudn't believe a claim without having evidence.
Atheist's Wager
==============
I agree. It's quite a primitive belief that their are "annointed" members of our species.
I disagree - What do the teachers know about God, what gives them the authority to teach? They known just about as much as the "unknown" as we do, or whether God exists or not.
We can create different "theories" but they're all guesses in lack of evidence.
I've found no "creation" story to carry any intelligent value - At least, not creation via any omnipotent being. You can claim the God created evolution or cosmic evolution, but the God didn't "create" physical matter like we create watches. - See the Blind watchmaker (Richard Dawkins_
Yeah i'd appreciate a listen to see what they have to say, what language they use, how they conduct experiments or challenge each other's viewpoints.
Thanks for replying, i really hope this "Urantia" book isn't enough claim to "a guide to life" and i hope it doesn't try to reveal wisdom that it could possibly not.
I agree you were responding to my points, it just seemed you were adding topics in a way as to make it seem that I said those things when I did not. I just wanted to make that point.
Well thanks i really was, and just expanding to add more coherence to my initial statements. Also, it was for the benefit of anyone reading, not just yourself; As these are common arguments posed by many Theists. I'm not accusing you of being a Theist, again - only responding to your initial defense to my claims of proof regarding Jesus.
One thing I've discovered is that truth is not afraid to face honest criticism.
Of course, i believe science can't be progressive if we don't abide to just the above ^.
I think someone would be foolish to not express their honest criticisms about a religion or belief system.
Indeed, freedom of speech etc. - I don't think religious dialogue is exempt from criticism for the same reason by political dialogue isnn't exempt from criticism. Religion is profound ideology that can change someone's thinking (and not always for the best, as you will have seen)
It is my opinion that no one should be made to accept something that does not make sense to them or is against their own moral or ethical beliefs.
I'm starting to wonder what we disagree about?
I agree that many people have issues with organized religion and that is one thing I like about the Urantia Book Community
Oh wait, this is the disagreement - I believe any profound metaphysical or supernatural claims formed without evidence should be treated with great suspicion, and great caution. When accounts cannot be falsified, there lies rooms for unauthentic preaching; fortune telling, talking to the dead, astrology; and most importantly religion. Anyone can make a God up. Many follows of "holy" doctrine are Athiests to other holy doctrine (or myth and legend)
I'm not condeming the study of the unknown, but what i am protesting is extraordinary claims that can't be backed up, and dishonest preaching about how the universe is or what the cause of it is. (metaphysical and supernatural claims)
There is not a hierarchy or priesthood or anything like that.
Well that seems to be a good start.
No churches or specific holy sites.
No congregations or sabbath/holy day. That's another merit so far.
We all are simply students trying to understand God
But we can't prove God, God is the unknown, what we don't understand, and most people want to understand what is unknown, whether it is "GOD" or something else. But let's not preach "GOD" as truth when we don't really know. Everyone wants to discover truth, what truth does the "Urantia Book" offer?
Because in the last analyst anyone’s belief is between that person and God.
If God is a conscious being who is capable of judging. If you honestly believe that God would judge you because you coudn't believe a claim without having evidence.
Atheist's Wager
==============
The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Blaise Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
There is no need for an in-between priesthood or anything like that.
I agree. It's quite a primitive belief that their are "annointed" members of our species.
Not saying there isn’t room for teachers, they just need to teach and not presume to place themselves as the only channel to God.
I disagree - What do the teachers know about God, what gives them the authority to teach? They known just about as much as the "unknown" as we do, or whether God exists or not.
We can create different "theories" but they're all guesses in lack of evidence.
What I meant to say is that the story of creation found in the Urantia Book is much more plausible than anything else I've found in other religions or science.
I've found no "creation" story to carry any intelligent value - At least, not creation via any omnipotent being. You can claim the God created evolution or cosmic evolution, but the God didn't "create" physical matter like we create watches. - See the Blind watchmaker (Richard Dawkins_
I certainly hope you do check out the Urantia Book and would like the say that there are sources online to download audio book versions as well.
Yeah i'd appreciate a listen to see what they have to say, what language they use, how they conduct experiments or challenge each other's viewpoints.
Thanks for replying, i really hope this "Urantia" book isn't enough claim to "a guide to life" and i hope it doesn't try to reveal wisdom that it could possibly not.
edit on 28/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
reply to post by awake_and_aware
Ok, I understand better why you added some stuff that I didn't say. I realize that these discussions are not just between me and you.
I am a Theist. I do believe that God created all reality, energy, matter, mind and spirit.
I agree, all religion/belief systems should be treated with great suspicion. Not sure what kind of proof you need as evidence. In my mind the only proof that could be imparted from one person to another is their personal experience. Also all religious belief systems should be judged by what they do for the soul of the individual and if the person lives a better, happier life because of these beliefs. I've actually meant several people who began reading the Urantia Book as skeptics or as fiction. After reading it and having a feeling that it seemed right they began to believe. Most people have it in their mind that God either exists or not and those that feel God does not exist seldom seek for knowledge about God. I think anyone who gives the Urantia Book an honest read would find it harder to disbelieve in God. The way God and the universe are described make sense. You get that "that makes sense" feeling. You must have an open mind, as the old saying goes, your mind is like a parachute, it must be open to work.
The Urantia Book does nothing on the order fortune telling, talking to the dead or astrology. It actually has many, many chapters on this stuff. It is discussed during the evolution of religion papers. It talks about nearly every major religion in the world.
You are correct, we can't prove God, but we also can't disprove God. To me there is too much in the known universe that shows intelligent design and can't be explained by blind evolution. A good example is the bacteria flagella used for motion. Examination of this mechanism shows what we would consider a geared motor. This could not have evolved because there are several parts that must work together to function. The absence of just one of these would make it a useless device. Also just to see the inner workings of a cell I believe is beyond accidental luck.
What is truth? Who can say what is true or not? At one time it was true the earth was flat and it was true we were the center of the universe. So truth is relative. So the truths of today will very likely not be the truths of tomorrow. The truths about God are eternal. The true teachings about God stand the tests of time, they are the same today as they were thousands of years ago and thousand of years from now. Man's understanding may change because we have the past to build upon and new information to use. With a little change in the words used the truth about God that was preached thousands of years ago can be preached thousands of years from now.
Concerning teachers, just like in any subject there are those who seem to "get it" better than others and many times those are the people who try to teach others to "get it" no matter what the subject is. I don't mean to be authoritative about it and have the attitude that only the given teacher has info about God. There are those who just seem to understand God better than others, just like there are those who understand math or grammar better than others.
Concerning the Urantia Book, judge it on its contents.
Ok, I understand better why you added some stuff that I didn't say. I realize that these discussions are not just between me and you.
I am a Theist. I do believe that God created all reality, energy, matter, mind and spirit.
I agree, all religion/belief systems should be treated with great suspicion. Not sure what kind of proof you need as evidence. In my mind the only proof that could be imparted from one person to another is their personal experience. Also all religious belief systems should be judged by what they do for the soul of the individual and if the person lives a better, happier life because of these beliefs. I've actually meant several people who began reading the Urantia Book as skeptics or as fiction. After reading it and having a feeling that it seemed right they began to believe. Most people have it in their mind that God either exists or not and those that feel God does not exist seldom seek for knowledge about God. I think anyone who gives the Urantia Book an honest read would find it harder to disbelieve in God. The way God and the universe are described make sense. You get that "that makes sense" feeling. You must have an open mind, as the old saying goes, your mind is like a parachute, it must be open to work.
The Urantia Book does nothing on the order fortune telling, talking to the dead or astrology. It actually has many, many chapters on this stuff. It is discussed during the evolution of religion papers. It talks about nearly every major religion in the world.
You are correct, we can't prove God, but we also can't disprove God. To me there is too much in the known universe that shows intelligent design and can't be explained by blind evolution. A good example is the bacteria flagella used for motion. Examination of this mechanism shows what we would consider a geared motor. This could not have evolved because there are several parts that must work together to function. The absence of just one of these would make it a useless device. Also just to see the inner workings of a cell I believe is beyond accidental luck.
What is truth? Who can say what is true or not? At one time it was true the earth was flat and it was true we were the center of the universe. So truth is relative. So the truths of today will very likely not be the truths of tomorrow. The truths about God are eternal. The true teachings about God stand the tests of time, they are the same today as they were thousands of years ago and thousand of years from now. Man's understanding may change because we have the past to build upon and new information to use. With a little change in the words used the truth about God that was preached thousands of years ago can be preached thousands of years from now.
Concerning teachers, just like in any subject there are those who seem to "get it" better than others and many times those are the people who try to teach others to "get it" no matter what the subject is. I don't mean to be authoritative about it and have the attitude that only the given teacher has info about God. There are those who just seem to understand God better than others, just like there are those who understand math or grammar better than others.
Concerning the Urantia Book, judge it on its contents.
I hope I don't get in trouble because I've posted this before in another discussion, but here it goes. This is something from the Urantia Book that I
personally like. This is from Paper 3 of the Urantia Book and the title of the paper is The Attributes of God:
The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:
Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.
Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.
Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.
Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.
Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.
It then goes on to discuss how there is a difference between these attributes that a mortal attains and those bestowed in perfection. For God has created beings who had no growth of the past and were developed as perfect.
The creatures of Havona are naturally brave, but they are not courageous in the human sense. They are innately kind and considerate, but hardly altruistic in the human way. They are expectant of a pleasant future, but not hopeful in the exquisite manner of the trusting mortal of the uncertain evolutionary spheres. They have faith in the stability of the universe, but they are utter strangers to that saving faith whereby mortal man climbs from the status of an animal up to the portals of Paradise. They love the truth, but they know nothing of its soul-saving qualities. They are idealists, but they were born that way; they are wholly ignorant of the ecstasy of becoming such by exhilarating choice. They are loyal, but they have never experienced the thrill of wholehearted and intelligent devotion to duty in the face of temptation to default. They are unselfish, but they never gained such levels of experience by the magnificent conquest of a belligerent self. They enjoy pleasure, but they do not comprehend the sweetness of the pleasure escape from the pain potential.
The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:
Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.
Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.
Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.
Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.
Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.
It then goes on to discuss how there is a difference between these attributes that a mortal attains and those bestowed in perfection. For God has created beings who had no growth of the past and were developed as perfect.
The creatures of Havona are naturally brave, but they are not courageous in the human sense. They are innately kind and considerate, but hardly altruistic in the human way. They are expectant of a pleasant future, but not hopeful in the exquisite manner of the trusting mortal of the uncertain evolutionary spheres. They have faith in the stability of the universe, but they are utter strangers to that saving faith whereby mortal man climbs from the status of an animal up to the portals of Paradise. They love the truth, but they know nothing of its soul-saving qualities. They are idealists, but they were born that way; they are wholly ignorant of the ecstasy of becoming such by exhilarating choice. They are loyal, but they have never experienced the thrill of wholehearted and intelligent devotion to duty in the face of temptation to default. They are unselfish, but they never gained such levels of experience by the magnificent conquest of a belligerent self. They enjoy pleasure, but they do not comprehend the sweetness of the pleasure escape from the pain potential.
edit on 31-5-2011 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)
There was no need for Jesus: this scenario posits that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to change the rules that he previously made. God
then accepted the death of himself as a solution for a problem he created in the first place. The penalty wasn’t even paid in full because if the
penalty for sin is the ultimate eternal separation from God, then Jesus isn’t serving that punishment and sentence. Jesus was rewarded by sitting
at the right hand of God, he’s not blinked out of existence or in hell. God is perfectly able to forgive sin without the need for any sacrifice and
he did so in Jonah 3.
Per Ezekiel 18:20-27; each and every person can absolve themselves by repenting and keeping the law.
The death of a man cannot atone for the sin of anyone. Humans are not used in sin sacrifices and are not legal according to God’s law. If anyone thinks otherwise, please show from the law that they are.
Per Ezekiel 18:20-27; each and every person can absolve themselves by repenting and keeping the law.
The death of a man cannot atone for the sin of anyone. Humans are not used in sin sacrifices and are not legal according to God’s law. If anyone thinks otherwise, please show from the law that they are.
reply to post by UB2120
How do you go about proving Christianity? Proving that God believes homosexuality is an aboniation, evidence for a God would have to be extraordinary, but how would you prove Islam, or Christianity is the most "accurate" dogma?
God would have to say "yes, i did all that, Jesus is true, i don't like gays, you're going to hell" - I'd say that could be considered evidence, but how do you know this is God, and not someone playing a trick on you?
Again, religion would be extremely hard to prove, it's always relied on a lack of proof in order to make it's claims.
JOHN: I saw an alien spacecraft last night.
SIMON: How do you know it was alien?
JOHN: Well i had an experience
SIMON: And your conclusion was that it was controlled by an E.T
Next day, evidence comes out explaining the natural phenonemom. Was there really "truth" exhanged between the two? Or had someone mistaken their "experience" because they had pre-subscribed beliefs?
Well i'll be sure to read it myself, and read as many reviews and critiques as possible, i hope anyone else would do the same.
Most people have it in their mind because it's been suggested for thousands of years, and even still - many tribes and societies still don't acknowledge a "creator" or don't even think in those terms about reality.
Again, it's an assumption. The people who suggest THERE IS A GOD, have all of their work ahead of them to explain what evidence there is to suggest the universe is managed in this way.
That's a bold statement, again - I'll be sure to read and get as many people's opinion on it as i can, even search it's origins and history.
Before Gallileo many people believed the Sun travelled around the Earth, makes sense doesn't it, the sun does APPEAR to move around the Earth.
Obviously now we can easily falsify this claim. Many Christians were offended at Gallileo's "working out" because it offended their word view that The sun was made just for the earth - "especially for us"
Things may appear to make sense, but we can often be mistaken - It seems such acknowledgment of our own mistakes is not enough to shake your "faith".
Again, some things do SEEM to make sense.
So you'd grant the POSSIBILITY that there may not be God, or there may be many, or there may be infinite? That's an open-mind.
Once you grant possibilities, some may seem more valid than others, especially on the available data we have. (I.e. floods are not caused by Gods)
Cool, it'll be interesting to see what claims it makes, and how detailed it describes origins of different faiths/religions.
I never made the claim that there was a God though. What's interesting is that even before telescopes and satellites and space travel that many people claimed God was causing punishment......
What evidence did they have to make this claim?
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. And don't claim there is no God, i never have. But certainly, many God(s) created by man can be falsified. (flood sending God for example)
Evolution isn't about explaining "intelligent design". Infact, Evolution's theories have disproved the "intelligent" design "theory"
Richard Dawkins explains how the laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe has not been intelligently designed
"Common misconceptions regarding Evolution - listverse.com...
Well is the Earth flat or an oblate spheroid? Which one is true? How do we know? How did we find out? Investigation. Intelligent enquiry.
Not sure what kind of proof you need as evidence.
How do you go about proving Christianity? Proving that God believes homosexuality is an aboniation, evidence for a God would have to be extraordinary, but how would you prove Islam, or Christianity is the most "accurate" dogma?
God would have to say "yes, i did all that, Jesus is true, i don't like gays, you're going to hell" - I'd say that could be considered evidence, but how do you know this is God, and not someone playing a trick on you?
Again, religion would be extremely hard to prove, it's always relied on a lack of proof in order to make it's claims.
In my mind the only proof that could be imparted from one person to another is their personal experience
JOHN: I saw an alien spacecraft last night.
SIMON: How do you know it was alien?
JOHN: Well i had an experience
SIMON: And your conclusion was that it was controlled by an E.T
Next day, evidence comes out explaining the natural phenonemom. Was there really "truth" exhanged between the two? Or had someone mistaken their "experience" because they had pre-subscribed beliefs?
Also all religious belief systems should be judged by what they do for the soul of the individual and if the person lives a better, happier life because of these beliefs.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -- George Bernard Shaw
I've actually meant several people who began reading the Urantia Book as skeptics or as fiction.
Well i'll be sure to read it myself, and read as many reviews and critiques as possible, i hope anyone else would do the same.
Most people have it in their mind that God either exists or not and those that feel God does not exist seldom seek for knowledge about God.
Most people have it in their mind because it's been suggested for thousands of years, and even still - many tribes and societies still don't acknowledge a "creator" or don't even think in those terms about reality.
Again, it's an assumption. The people who suggest THERE IS A GOD, have all of their work ahead of them to explain what evidence there is to suggest the universe is managed in this way.
think anyone who gives the Urantia Book an honest read would find it harder to disbelieve in God.
That's a bold statement, again - I'll be sure to read and get as many people's opinion on it as i can, even search it's origins and history.
The way God and the universe are described make sense.
Before Gallileo many people believed the Sun travelled around the Earth, makes sense doesn't it, the sun does APPEAR to move around the Earth.
Obviously now we can easily falsify this claim. Many Christians were offended at Gallileo's "working out" because it offended their word view that The sun was made just for the earth - "especially for us"
Things may appear to make sense, but we can often be mistaken - It seems such acknowledgment of our own mistakes is not enough to shake your "faith".
You get that "that makes sense" feeling.
Again, some things do SEEM to make sense.
You must have an open mind, as the old saying goes, your mind is like a parachute, it must be open to work.
So you'd grant the POSSIBILITY that there may not be God, or there may be many, or there may be infinite? That's an open-mind.
Once you grant possibilities, some may seem more valid than others, especially on the available data we have. (I.e. floods are not caused by Gods)
The Urantia Book does nothing on the order fortune telling, talking to the dead or astrology. It actually has many, many chapters on this stuff. It is discussed during the evolution of religion papers. It talks about nearly every major religion in the world.
Cool, it'll be interesting to see what claims it makes, and how detailed it describes origins of different faiths/religions.
You are correct, we can't prove God, but we also can't disprove God.
I never made the claim that there was a God though. What's interesting is that even before telescopes and satellites and space travel that many people claimed God was causing punishment......
What evidence did they have to make this claim?
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. And don't claim there is no God, i never have. But certainly, many God(s) created by man can be falsified. (flood sending God for example)
To me there is too much in the known universe that shows intelligent design and can't be explained by blind evolution.
Evolution isn't about explaining "intelligent design". Infact, Evolution's theories have disproved the "intelligent" design "theory"
15. Evolution is a theory about the origin of life - INCORRECT.
The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin. While science is interested in the origins of life (for example the composition of the primeval sludge from which life might have come) but these are not issues covered in the area of evolution. What is known is that regardless of the start, at some point life began to branch off. Evolution is, therefore, dedicated to the study of those processes.
Richard Dawkins explains how the laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe has not been intelligently designed
The theory of evolution primarily deals with the manner in which life has changed after its origin. While science is interested in the origins of life (for example the composition of the primeval sludge from which life might have come) but these are not issues covered in the area of evolution. What is known is that regardless of the start, at some point life began to branch off. Evolution is, therefore, dedicated to the study of those processes.
"Common misconceptions regarding Evolution - listverse.com...
What is truth?
Well is the Earth flat or an oblate spheroid? Which one is true? How do we know? How did we find out? Investigation. Intelligent enquiry.
edit
on 1/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
Did Jesus really make a sacrifice?
I wrote the analogy below, to help explain how I see Jesus sacrifice.
Imagine a soldier, who has been given a mission to deliver a message. The message must be delivered to an army who are in danger, because an enemy is fast approaching them. Unfortunately the soldier is going to have to get past the enemy in order to deliver the message to the captain of the army. The soldier knows that it is a risky mission and that he might get killed (from Jesus/God perspective, God knew Jesus would be killed by men) in the process.
The soldier does his best to deliver his message but along his journey he gets shot a few times and is bleeding heavily. He finally makes it to the camp and crawls into the captains headquarters. The soldier reaches into his pocket and hands an envelope to the captain, which contains the coordinates of the enemies position and details of what the captain must do to avoid the enemy. After he has handed over the message, the soldier because he has lost too much blood, dies from his wounds.
I would say that the solder gave his life for those men, but it is not his death/blood that saves them, but it’s the message that he died to bring that saves.
I see Jesus sacrifice in a similar way to my analogy above. He comes to testify to the truth, knowing that men would reject it, and have him killed for doing so. God and Jesus also knew in advance, that men would have him killed because God know all things ahead of time. Because of this, I see Jesus sacrifice, as modern day version of the word “sacrifice.”
Why does Jesus do this? IMO he does this because it’s the message of Jesus, which brings a person closer to God, and leads that person into salvation.
I don’t mean to downplay Jesus actual physical death on the cross, because I believe that it shows us that death is not real and that Jesus/God loves us enough, to go through the pain of death, to help us get to know God and to help teach us, to turn away from our sins.
This is why I believe Jesus says the following…
Matthew 20:28:
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
IMO Jesus does give his life as a Ransom for many, but what is left open to interpretation in the above verse, is the manner in which Jesus gives his life for many. This is really up too every individual, to try and work out for themselves.
- JC
I wrote the analogy below, to help explain how I see Jesus sacrifice.
Imagine a soldier, who has been given a mission to deliver a message. The message must be delivered to an army who are in danger, because an enemy is fast approaching them. Unfortunately the soldier is going to have to get past the enemy in order to deliver the message to the captain of the army. The soldier knows that it is a risky mission and that he might get killed (from Jesus/God perspective, God knew Jesus would be killed by men) in the process.
The soldier does his best to deliver his message but along his journey he gets shot a few times and is bleeding heavily. He finally makes it to the camp and crawls into the captains headquarters. The soldier reaches into his pocket and hands an envelope to the captain, which contains the coordinates of the enemies position and details of what the captain must do to avoid the enemy. After he has handed over the message, the soldier because he has lost too much blood, dies from his wounds.
I would say that the solder gave his life for those men, but it is not his death/blood that saves them, but it’s the message that he died to bring that saves.
I see Jesus sacrifice in a similar way to my analogy above. He comes to testify to the truth, knowing that men would reject it, and have him killed for doing so. God and Jesus also knew in advance, that men would have him killed because God know all things ahead of time. Because of this, I see Jesus sacrifice, as modern day version of the word “sacrifice.”
Why does Jesus do this? IMO he does this because it’s the message of Jesus, which brings a person closer to God, and leads that person into salvation.
I don’t mean to downplay Jesus actual physical death on the cross, because I believe that it shows us that death is not real and that Jesus/God loves us enough, to go through the pain of death, to help us get to know God and to help teach us, to turn away from our sins.
This is why I believe Jesus says the following…
Matthew 20:28:
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
IMO Jesus does give his life as a Ransom for many, but what is left open to interpretation in the above verse, is the manner in which Jesus gives his life for many. This is really up too every individual, to try and work out for themselves.
- JC
reply to post by Joecroft
Nice anology.... but if a soldier needed to spread an important message, would he send the messenger to the less-literated, less advanced indviduals first? Or would he disseminate the message to the one's that could read and write first?
In short, why does God send Jesus to the less-literate parts of the desert? Why not to the Chinese who could read and write at the time, who had a civilisation.?
Nice anology.... but if a soldier needed to spread an important message, would he send the messenger to the less-literated, less advanced indviduals first? Or would he disseminate the message to the one's that could read and write first?
In short, why does God send Jesus to the less-literate parts of the desert? Why not to the Chinese who could read and write at the time, who had a civilisation.?
new topics
-
Of course it was DEI
Dissecting Disinformation: 24 minutes ago -
2nd Day Thanksgiving!...(leftovers!!)
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago
top topics
-
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies: 14 hours ago, 5 flags -
Of course it was DEI
Dissecting Disinformation: 24 minutes ago, 3 flags -
2nd Day Thanksgiving!...(leftovers!!)
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies • 18 • : Popoll -
Of course it was DEI
Dissecting Disinformation • 0 • : fringeofthefringe -
2nd Day Thanksgiving!...(leftovers!!)
General Chit Chat • 4 • : nugget1 -
Unidentified Flying Objects Over U.S. Military Bases in Northeast UK, as of roughly 11 a.m. CST.
Aliens and UFOs • 32 • : Kangawoo2 -
The Party of Peace - Trump Cabinet Picks Targeted with Death Threats
US Political Madness • 51 • : RazorV66 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3416 • : duncanagain -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 263 • : DontTreadOnMe -
Anyone like the Scorpions?
Music • 23 • : Flyingclaydisk -
The Cost of True Discipleship—Count the Cost
Religion, Faith, And Theology • 5 • : alwaysbeenhere2 -
Mass UAP events. DC. Machester Airport, UFOs over sub base in CT, Nuke bases.
Aliens and UFOs • 24 • : devilhunter69