Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Rhiannon on August 08, 2015, 08:21:14 PM
-
Why does nobody here ever seem to mention her? How do posters regard her?
-
As an ordinary woman chosen by God for an extraordinary purpose.
That's about it, really.
-
How do you feel about the loss she was asked to bear? Beginning with her son choosing the life of an itinerant preacher of course, but then witnessing his death?
Do you think she should be a focus of prayer or meditation for Christian women? Or people who need a mother figure?
-
She went through the terrible loss of bereavement...probably she had been somewhat bamboozled by her son's behaviour.
She may have tried to keep the family together, as there was some disbelief amongst Jesus' siblings.
As for a focus of prayer?
Nothing in Scripture leads me to that conclusion.
From what I've read of church history, Mary seems to have been promoted by those who felt a substitute for the mother goddess was needed, and elevated Mary, without any real Scriptural evidence, to fit the bill.
Early statues of theMary with the infant Christ bear a striking resemblence to similar statues of the Egyptian mother goddess Isis, nursing the infant Horus - a couplet which had been Hellenised, Romanised, and spread as a 'mystery cult' throughout the Empire in thefirst three centuries AD.
-
I believe she is extraordinary! We are haunted by Victorian-style images of motherhood displaying her as soft and meek, but I believe she must have been as hard as nails to do what she did. The magnificat shows her to be a true revolutionary who accepted with both hands the role she could play in bringing about a better world. She informs my socialism as well as my Catholicism, as does her son, who learned his values and his heritage at her knee.
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
Incidentally, some neo-pagans include Mary in their pantheon, especially those who follow a Goddess path.
-
Rhi.
"divine feminine"?
Although we use the honourific 'He' when refering to God, He is niether masculine nor feminine.
Since there is but One Lord and King, I see nothing in Scripture about a queen.
-
I believe she is extraordinary! We are haunted by Victorian-style images of motherhood displaying her as soft and meek, but I believe she must have been as hard as nails to do what she did. The magnificat shows her to be a true revolutionary who accepted with both hands the role she could play in bringing about a better world. She informs my socialism as well as my Catholicism, as does her son, who learned his values and his heritage at her knee.
Yes, meek and obedient doesn't cut it for me either. Assuming that the basic history of Jesus' life is correct she must have been remarkable.
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine, and Mary is not divine
-
Rhi.
"divine finine"?
Although we use the honourific 'He' when refering to God, He is niether masculine nor feminine.
Since there is but One Lord and King, I see nothing in Scripture about a queen.
Sorry, posting on my phone. Anyway, we got what I meant.
So when we are made in God's image that doesn't include females?
-
So when we are made in God's image that doesn't include females?
Wrong; that does include females. As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine.
-
Where did I say that, Rhi?
The 'image of God' is not physical....after all, were it so, we'd all look like clones!
-
There are lots of report of Marian Apparitions:
In addition to the famous ones of Lourdes, Fatima and Medjugore, there have been hundreds reported:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html
Just wondered if there are any strong views?
-
It's very difficult not to view as masculine a god who is referred to as 'Father' and 'He/Him'. If God is neither then why not add in 'Her' somewhere?
-
So when we are made in God's image that doesn't include females?
Wrong; that does include females. As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine.
Sorry again, not seeing everything on my phone screen properly.
-
There are lots of report of Marian Apparitions:
In addition to the famous ones of Lourdes, Fatima and Medjugore, there have been hundreds reported:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html
Just wondered if there are any strong views?
Alan, I have never seen any apparitions; but many years ago, when my husband and I were struggling with issues to do with one of our lads, on several occasions I had a sense of the presence of Mary. It's hard to describe, but the presence seemed to have a strength - quite overwhelming - that gave me strength, and was certainly a factor in getting us through that difficult time.
-
It's very difficult not to view as masculine a god who is referred to as 'Father' and 'He/Him'. If God is neither then why not add in 'Her' somewhere?
-
Because that is not how either the Hebrew or Greek texts show the pronoun, Rhi.
I think, though, that you'll find many 'feminine' attributes ascribed to God in the OT - the Psalms are a rich source, for example.
-
As a Pagan (or neo-Pagan, if you must) I am well aware of what my view of the entire bible story of Mary would result in.
Terminal vilification in the most unpleasant fashion and on an epic scale; all I will say is that my path includes the divine feminine, big time, and Christianity took over from Paganism.
-
Why does nobody here ever seem to mention her? How do posters regard her?
Theotokos, that is, Godbearer. Ever-virgin without blemish, that is, in the words of the seventh ecumencal council against the Iconoclasts.
-
It's very difficult not to view as masculine a god who is referred to as 'Father' and 'He/Him'. If God is neither then why not add in 'Her' somewhere?
If Jesus referred to Him as "Father," that will do for me, rather than your take.
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
I'm not sure that Christianity needs a second idea of the 'divine feminine', as you call it. I realise that we have, elsewhere, been debating the role of the Old Testament in Christian thinking, but we need to remember that the very early church would have had this idea of the 'divine feminine' already in their minds - remember that, for the Jews, of the 144 names of God, only 72 are masculine; the rest are feminine.
I suspect that that duality became lost once the Romans took the religion over, but interestingly, in English at least, it was sort of regained as we only have one gender-marked pronominal set - and that is the feminine set. In a way, the modern push to make English-language Bible translations 'inclusive' is actually over-egging the femininity of the deity and 'his' followers.
-
So when we are made in God's image that doesn't include females?
See my previous post, Rhi.
-
It's very difficult not to view as masculine a god who is referred to as 'Father' and 'He/Him'. If God is neither then why not add in 'Her' somewhere?
Rhi, you are very modern-English-centric. Why add a 'Her' in when - in English - 'He/Him' necessarily includes 'She/Her'. I accept that there are times, such as when Paul or one of the other writers of the epistles refers to (human) 'Brothers', an addition of 'and Sisters', makes sense since that is what they would have been meaning, but why give a gender specification to God when the deity transcends gender? 'He' is perfectly correct, grammatically and gender-specifically - in English - as it is officially genderless.
That said, I can see that translations of the Bible into other languages that have more than one gender-specific pronominal set may need to be that much more exact.
-
As a Pagan (or neo-Pagan, if you must) I am well aware of what my view of the entire bible story of Mary would result in.
Terminal vilification in the most unpleasant fashion and on an epic scale; all I will say is that my path includes the divine feminine, big time and Chritianinty took over from Paganism.
From what I understand of paganism from others, Matt, I suspect that your "view of the entire bible story of Mary" would probably be fairly un-dramatic.
-
Why does nobody here ever seem to mention her? How do posters regard her?
I think Mary was likely to have been a very young girl, probably lower than the age of consent in the UK today. She found herself pregnant by Joseph, or another human male, before she was wed! I suspect the 'god wot did it' fantasy was put around to cover the fact of the shameful conception of Jesus, as it would have been considered in those days.
-
Why does nobody here ever seem to mention her? How do posters regard her?
Theotokos, that is, Godbearer. Ever-virgin without blemish, that is, in the words of the seventh ecumencal council against the Iconoclasts.
Yeah, it took the Christian Church a thousand years, well 787 years, to come up with this in one of the major re-writings/editings of the Bible, done to make it fit the standards and opinions of the hierarchy of the time. Not for the first time and not for the last either!
-
I think Mary was likely to have been a very young girl, probably lower than the age of consent in the UK today. She found herself pregnant by Joseph, or another human male, before she was wed! I suspect the 'god wot did it' fantasy was put around to cover the fact of the shameful conception of Jesus, as it would have been considered in those days.
And your assumption would barely be half correct, Floo. For one thing, Jewish betrothal was and still is far closer to the modern concept of marriage than to the modern concept of engagement. For a Jewish couple who have become betrothed, to break that bond requires divorce. What is different is that physical consummation of that bond will not have taken place. Traditionally, the bethrothal ceremony would take place (and that would be legally binding) and the groom would then return to his familial home and build a new residence (often an extension to the family home). Only when his father was happy with the status of this extension, would the groom then go and collect his wife and bring her to her new home.
Regarding the comment about 'age of consent', the age of puberty and maturity have jumped all over the place - especially for women - over the last few thousand years. At a time when life expectancy was probably about half that of today, the age at which a girl was capable of bearing children was likely considerably less than it is nowadays, and with it the age of consent (if that concept existed in the same way as it does today).
-
Yeah, it took the Christian Church a thousand years, well 787 years, to come up with this in one of the major re-writings/editings of the Bible, done to make it fit the standards and opinions of the hierarchy of the time. Not for the first time and not for the last either!
Not quite true, Matt. Origen, who died circa 250 AD, is thought to be the first person to have 'coined' the term, and it was used by several Church Fathers in the 4th century AD and beyond.
It was first formally affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Interestingly, its proper theological meaning is "the one who gives birth to the one who is God", so even the modern Orthodox understanding is somewhat skewed, since it originally had nothing to do with 'ever-virgin' status.
Furthermore, the actual term appears nowhere in the Bible - so can't have had anything to do with your so-called 'major re-writings/editings of the Bible'.
-
Why does nobody here ever seem to mention her? How do posters regard her?
Theotokos, that is, Godbearer. Ever-virgin without blemish, that is, in the words of the seventh ecumencal council against the Iconoclasts.
Yeah, it took the Christian Church a thousand years, well 787 years, to come up with this in one of the major re-writings/editings of the Bible, done to make it fit the standards and opinions of the hierarchy of the time. Not for the first time and not for the last either!
Most of those terms are much earlier than that, especially in the Syriac liturgy. Anyway, the date of any definition is really of little relevance because it ignores how the Church does these things. In otherwords, the Church defines in the face of heresy.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
#29 and #30
So even Christians can't agree on the truth or otherwise of the Bible, so why should anyone else!
-
#29 and #30
So even Christians can't agree on the truth or otherwise of the Bible, so why should anyone else!
So,Matt, does this mean that, because different British citizens interpret/understand British law in different ways that that law oughtn't to listened to?
-
Laws are made by fallible, information-limited people for other fallible and information-limited people, and are sometimes sufficiently badly worded as to be open to interpretation.
These are not factors we'd expect of a supremely wise creator of the universe with a specific message to get across, are they?
-
These are not factors we'd expect of a supremely wise creator of the universe with a specific message to get across, are they?
How 'specific', as you say, is the message? For instance, doesn't it differ to some degree between people who understand the concept of animal slaughter and those who don't; or between those with power and those without?
-
How 'specific', as you say, is the message?
That's precisely the sort of thing you'd expect a deity to know if such a thing existed. I go to some considerable trouble to write as clearly and as simply as I can, even if it means writing at greater length than otherwise (I strive to be brief and become obscure, as the old Roman put it), because it's vitally important to convey your meaning accurately and to reduce the risk of ambiguity, misunderstanding and other forms of unclarity to the very lowest possible level. And I'm just an ordinary Joe with an excellent command of English, great critical thinking skills, a laptop and a smartphone.
Don't you think a deity could do even better?
-
I go to some considerable trouble to write as clearly and as simply as I can, even if it means writing at greater length than otherwise (I strive to be brief and become obscure, as the old Roman put it), because it's vitally important to convey your meaning accurately and to reduce the risk of ambiguity, misunderstanding and other forms of unclarity to the very lowest possible level. And I'm just an ordinary Joe with an excellent command of English, great critical thinking skills, a laptop and a smartphone.
Don't you think a deity could do even better?
How many people and how many cultural contexts are you addressing when you communicate, Shaker? Let's take this forum as your 'zone' of communication.
-
How many people and how many cultural contexts are you addressing when you communicate, Shaker? Let's take this forum as your 'zone' of communication.
An entirely irrelevant point to an all-knowing deity, surely? Or perhaps it isn't all-knowing after all and is a bit of a duffer with languages, and doesn't care about poor or mistranslation, ambiguity and so forth. Seems more likely, doesn't it?
-
How many people and how many cultural contexts are you addressing when you communicate, Shaker? Let's take this forum as your 'zone' of communication.
An entirely irrelevant point to an all-knowing deity, surely? Or perhaps it isn't all-knowing after all and is a bit of a duffer with languages, and doesn't care about poor or mistranslation, ambiguity and so forth. Seems more likely, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't seem more likely; rather it seems as if we have a deity here who realised that language was never going to stand still and that it was therefore going to be very difficult to satisfy everyone. Furthermore, we have a deity who clearly appreciated that these humans were going to use the very brains that he had given them to think things through.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
-
I think Mary was likely to have been a very young girl, probably lower than the age of consent in the UK today. She found herself pregnant by Joseph, or another human male, before she was wed! I suspect the 'god wot did it' fantasy was put around to cover the fact of the shameful conception of Jesus, as it would have been considered in those days.
And your assumption would barely be half correct, Floo. For one thing, Jewish betrothal was and still is far closer to the modern concept of marriage than to the modern concept of engagement. For a Jewish couple who have become betrothed, to break that bond requires divorce. What is different is that physical consummation of that bond will not have taken place. Traditionally, the bethrothal ceremony would take place (and that would be legally binding) and the groom would then return to his familial home and build a new residence (often an extension to the family home). Only when his father was happy with the status of this extension, would the groom then go and collect his wife and bring her to her new home.
Regarding the comment about 'age of consent', the age of puberty and maturity have jumped all over the place - especially for women - over the last few thousand years. At a time when life expectancy was probably about half that of today, the age at which a girl was capable of bearing children was likely considerably less than it is nowadays, and with it the age of consent (if that concept existed in the same way as it does today).
Well Joseph didn't appear too happy at first that Mary was in the family way, did he?
-
That language doesn't stand still is no get-out clause - remember that we're supposed to be dealing with an entity here which knows everything and can do anything (or anything logically possible at any rate). Getting the message across with absolute clarity, no scope for ambiguity or error, in every language and dialect ever known would not be an issue, would it? What is "very difficult" for such an entity?
Instead this alleged entity allows humans to "think things through" to the point of torturing and murdering each other in number over differing translations of the same obscure texts in ancient languages. Great.
-
How 'specific', as you say, is the message?
That's precisely the sort of thing you'd expect a deity to know if such a thing existed. I go to some considerable trouble to write as clearly and as simply as I can, even if it means writing at greater length than otherwise (I strive to be brief and become obscure, as the old Roman put it), because it's vitally important to convey your meaning accurately and to reduce the risk of ambiguity, misunderstanding and other forms of unclarity to the very lowest possible level. And I'm just an ordinary Joe with an excellent command of English, great critical thinking skills, a laptop and a smartphone.
Don't you think a deity could do even better?
You are as brief and concise as Professor Stanley Unwin!
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
Branches? Bollocks! There are no branches. Branch theory equals incoherent ecclesiology or fudge.
-
There's nothing like Christian unity.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.
-
"churched"
An old Catholic and Orthodox tradition that they got from Jewish purity laws. Which explains why I know of no woman ever being "churched" in my family. The ladies I know would never have gone for something like that. They were and are, each one, a force to be reckoned with. (some owning their own rifles)
Prayers to Mary? Good grief no! I recall finding the sheet music to Ava Maria when going through the piano bench at my church one Saturday night. The next day before going to church I mentioned it to dad. He kinda frowned and then I told him I had put it in the garbage. "Fine" was his reply. I think dad had a few words with the music director that morning at church because he seemed to avoid me for weeks.
-
There are lots of report of Marian Apparitions:
In addition to the famous ones of Lourdes, Fatima and Medjugore, there have been hundreds reported:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html
Just wondered if there are any strong views?
Alan, I have never seen any apparitions; but many years ago, when my husband and I were struggling with issues to do with one of our lads, on several occasions I had a sense of the presence of Mary. It's hard to describe, but the presence seemed to have a strength - quite overwhelming - that gave me strength, and was certainly a factor in getting us through that difficult time.
It's interesting, when I've been in moments of crisis in the past four or five years I've felt a strong female presence. Not Mary, I wouldn't have said, but very definitely feminine.
I'm aware that there is no evidence that this exists outside of my own mind, but it helped me when I needed it.
-
"churched"
An old Catholic and Orthodox tradition that they got from Jewish purity laws. Which explains why I know of no woman ever being "churched" in my family. The ladies I know would never have gone for something like that. They were and are, each one, a force to be reckoned with. (some owning their own rifles)
Prayers to Mary? Good grief no! I recall finding the sheet music to Ava Maria when going through the piano bench at my church one Saturday night. The next day before going to church I mentioned it to dad. He kinda frowned and then I told him I had put it in the garbage. "Fine" was his reply. I think dad had a few words with the music director that morning at church because he seemed to avoid me for weeks.
It's a beautiful piece of music though. If you don't believe it then that is all it is - it doesn't possess magic powers or anything.
-
Which one though? There are loads (beside the famous one by Gounod).
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
I'm not sure that Christianity needs a second idea of the 'divine feminine', as you call it. I realise that we have, elsewhere, been debating the role of the Old Testament in Christian thinking, but we need to remember that the very early church would have had this idea of the 'divine feminine' already in their minds - remember that, for the Jews, of the 144 names of God, only 72 are masculine; the rest are feminine.
I suspect that that duality became lost once the Romans took the religion over, but interestingly, in English at least, it was sort of regained as we only have one gender-marked pronominal set - and that is the feminine set. In a way, the modern push to make English-language Bible translations 'inclusive' is actually over-egging the femininity of the deity and 'his' followers.
We aren't going to accept that 'Father' also means 'Mother'. Given that the Jewish people did indeed have both masculine and feminine terms for God, isn't it time we redressed the bs lance? Not out of political correctness or even equality, but out of the need for accuracy?
-
It's interesting, when I've been in moments of crisis in the past four or five years I've felt a strong female presence. Not Mary, I wouldn't have said, but very definitely feminine.
I'm aware that there is no evidence that this exists outside of my own mind, but it helped me when I needed it.
I suppose it has depended on the nature of the crisis. Sometimes I feel the presence of my father, sometimes of my mother. Dad died in 1982; Mum in 2007.
Possibly related to the areas of life that they 'represent' - Mum, who had been a nurse, was quite prevalent during my heart incident earlier this year (though I was also aware that Dad had died from a massive heart attack all those years ago). On the other hand, when I've had difficut situations in my teaching and youth work, it's often been Dad (who started life as a teacher, and then ran the CofE's youth work nationally for 20+ years).
-
We aren't going to accept that 'Father' also means 'Mother'. Given that the Jewish people did indeed have both masculine and feminine terms for God, isn't it time we redressed the bs lance? Not out of political correctness or even equality, but out of the need for accuracy?
Many Protestant churches I've attended don't seem to have lost this balance. Only ever been to one RC service and never been to an Orthodox service so can't speak for them.
However, I'd agree that society has - both functionally and linguistically - but then there are those here who seem to want to jemmy the church into modern social thought patterns.
-
Why did God 'NEED' her to make Jesus?
-
but then there are those here who seem to want to jemmy the church into modern social thought patterns.
Highly unlikely. That's not the same as wanting the church to keep its irrelevant and unwanted nose out of these "modern social thought patterns."
-
Well Joseph didn't appear too happy at first that Mary was in the family way, did he?
Quite, so it is unlikely that it was he who had got her into that condition. Notice, that as you say, he didn't appear too happy - at first. Why do you think he changed his way of thinking? After all, he was minded to divorce her, so was clear that the child wasn't his. Do you think he would have been happy to 'cover up' unfaithfulness with the story that we know?
-
Highly unlikely. That's not the same as wanting the church to keep its irrelevant and unwanted nose out of these "modern social thought patterns."
If that's the case, why do so many, both here and elsewhere, insist that the church has got to come 'into the 21st century'?
-
Bells and smells are nice Rhi, but such popery will no be tolerated in my church. If there is a scripture verse you know of, that promotes prayers to dead people, please share it with me and I will take another look at my position. Words can be very dangerous Rhi, no matter if they are set to beautiful music.
-
Well Joseph didn't appear too happy at first that Mary was in the family way, did he?
Quite, so it is unlikely that it was he who had got her into that condition. Notice, that as you say, he didn't appear too happy - at first. Why do you think he changed his way of thinking? After all, he was minded to divorce her, so was clear that the child wasn't his. Do you think he would have been happy to 'cover up' unfaithfulness with the story that we know?
If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.
-
If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.
And what evidence do you have for it not being true?
-
Highly unlikely. That's not the same as wanting the church to keep its irrelevant and unwanted nose out of these "modern social thought patterns."
If that's the case, why do so many, both here and elsewhere, insist that the church has got to come 'into the 21st century'?
What counts as "many"? Who is saying this? Not the bulk of the majority apatheistic and ignostic British population, for sure.
Doubtless you can find a few people here and there who might naively think that if the church had lent its support to, say, equal marriage - an entirely civil, secular affair which had and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the church - it might have been seen as marginally less backward, but in actual fact they'd be no less irrelevant.
-
If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.
And what evidence do you have for it not being true?
And another attempt to shift the burden of proof.
-
... and an adroit deployment of Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy ;)
-
If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.
And what evidence do you have for it not being true?
I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.
The burden of proof here is yours!
-
... and an adroit deployment of Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy ;)
Gordon proposed an alternative understanding of the 'story as we know it'. Everyone here says that it is important to have evidence for such proposals in order to properly judge them. Where is the evidence for this one? Simply regurgitating the much beloved 'there isn't a God' argument isn't acceptable unless there is evidence to support it.
-
I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.
The burden of proof here is yours!
As I said to Floo, is it likely that Joseph would have been happy with a 'cover up' (as I think she called it) of the nature that we have? If you don't think he would have done, what other explanations would you suggest; if you feel he would have been, why?
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.
That's nonsense as well.
-
... and an adroit deployment of Hope's beloved negative proof fallacy ;)
Gordon proposed an alternative understanding of the 'story as we know it'. Everyone here says that it is important to have evidence for such proposals in order to properly judge them. Where is the evidence for this one? Simply regurgitating the much beloved 'there isn't a God' argument isn't acceptable unless there is evidence to support it.
No I didn't - I simply pointed out that that the claimed details of the alleged pregnancy of Mary aren't items of knowledge. I haven't tried to 'understand' this tale in any other way than point out that the risk that it not be factually correct.
I offer no explanations for this story - just doubt as to its historical veracity.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.
That's nonsense as well.
Churching? Or viewing women and childbirth as unclean?
-
Bells and smells are nice Rhi, but such popery will no be tolerated in my church. If there is a scripture verse you know of, that promotes prayers to dead people, please share it with me and I will take another look at my position. Words can be very dangerous Rhi, no matter if they are set to beautiful music.
Tha saints ain't dead for they live and reign with Christ. In the Apocalypse the saints are are of thecprayers of those in earth and present them to God.
-
I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.
The burden of proof here is yours!
As I said to Floo, is it likely that Joseph would have been happy with a 'cover up' (as I think she called it) of the nature that we have? If you don't think he would have done, what other explanations would you suggest; if you feel he would have been, why?
You're doing it again: assuming claims as being facts.
Your challenge here is no more relevant than is asking me to provide evidence that Sherlock Holmes really could play the violin.
-
I don't need any: I'm simply flagging it up that this story not being true is a risk that you who believe the NT claims have studiously avoided addressing in any meaningful or non-fallacious way.
The burden of proof here is yours!
As I said to Floo, is it likely that Joseph would have been happy with a 'cover up' (as I think she called it) of the nature that we have? If you don't think he would have done, what other explanations would you suggest; if you feel he would have been, why?
Matthew 1v19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. NIV
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.
That's nonsense as well.
Churching? Or viewing women and childbirth as unclean?
Place your bets ...
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
My aunt was 'churched after having my cousin. This notion of perpetual virginity has rendered women as dirty and childbirth as shameful, even within marriage. We are still battling against this attitude even now.
That's nonsense as well.
Churching? Or viewing women and childbirth as unclean?
The latter.
-
Matthew 1v19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. NIV
Yeah, and ... ? We're beyond that stage, Floo. In the post you quoted, and previous ones, I asked why he chose not to.
Note, by the way, the use of the term 'divorce' in the passage you have quoted, something that I pointed out back in posts #27 and 56.
-
Matthew 1v19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. NIV
Yeah, and ... ? We're beyond that stage, Floo. In the post you quoted, and previous ones, I asked why he chose not to.
Note, by the way, the use of the term 'divorce' in the passage you have quoted, something that I pointed out back in posts #56
Well whatever he was still unhappy the girl was up the spout. The idea that god wot did it is not credible in the slightest on any level!
-
The idea that god wot did it is not credible in the slightest on any level!
Why not?
-
Probably because the idea of gods itself isn't credible.
-
Prayers to Mary? Good grief no! I recall finding the sheet music to Ava Maria when going through the piano bench at my church one Saturday night. The next day before going to church I mentioned it to dad. He kinda frowned and then I told him I had put it in the garbage. "Fine" was his reply. I think dad had a few words with the music director that morning at church because he seemed to avoid me for weeks.
Don't be too quick to dismiss the concept of Mary being able to intercede between us and God to help with our needs. Mary can definitely see things from a different perspective in Heaven, and help in ways which we do not fully understand, and I have personally found out from my own experiences that the reciting of the rosary can be a very powerful prayer in many different ways. I am certain that Mary has a vested interest in helping people in this world.
-
::)
-
The idea that god wot did it is not credible in the slightest on any level!
Why not?
Because it is a crazy idea which makes no sense! Surely an omnipotent deity who believe it had screwed up by creating human nature so humans needed 'saving' could have waved its magic wand and put it right without getting a young girl pregnant, and then having her son die a very painful death. None of that was very successful anyway, because Jesus wasn't recognised as the 'messiah' by the vast majority of Jews, or by many people throughout the centuries. Another screw up on the part of the deity?
-
The idea that god wot did it is not credible in the slightest on any level!
Why not?
Because it is a crazy idea which makes no sense! Surely an omnipotent deity who believe it had screwed up by creating human nature so humans needed 'saving' could have waved its magic wand and put it right without getting a young girl pregnant, and then having her son die a very painful death. None of that was very successful anyway, because Jesus wasn't recognised as the 'messiah' by the vast majority of Jews, or by many people throughout the centuries. Another screw up on the part of the deity?
Obsession, obsession, obsession... imo :D
-
Looks like a series of pointed, challenging questions that you haven't even attempted to address.
-
Looks like a series of pointed, challenging questions that you haven't even attempted to address.
I wonder who Shaker's talking to, and what he's talking about?
-
The idea that god wot did it is not credible in the slightest on any level!
Why not?
Because it is a crazy idea which makes no sense! Surely an omnipotent deity who believe it had screwed up by creating human nature so humans needed 'saving' could have waved its magic wand and put it right without getting a young girl pregnant, and then having her son die a very painful death. None of that was very successful anyway, because Jesus wasn't recognised as the 'messiah' by the vast majority of Jews, or by many people throughout the centuries. Another screw up on the part of the deity?
When framed as an episode of Eastenders like you've done here I suppose nothing would make sense. However for those who don't run off childishly when concepts of personal sin, cosmic alienation, and existential disintegration are at stake thank heavens for those personalities prepared to make the sacrifices and personally difficult decisions involved in God's plan for our salvation....including God.
-
Because it is a crazy idea which makes no sense!
Seem to remember that this argument has been used against a number of scientific matters, Floo. So, I'm not sure that it really holds water.
-
Looks like a series of pointed, challenging questions that you haven't even attempted to address.
I wonder who Shaker's talking to, and what he's talking about?
To you, and your facile and fatuous non-response to Floo's post.
-
Looks like a series of pointed, challenging questions that you haven't even attempted to address.
I wonder who Shaker's talking to, and what he's talking about?
To you, and your facile and fatuous non-response to Floo's post.
Oh dear, obsession, obsession, obsession. Try and think of something original to say. It will, of course, be very difficult for you.
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points if you think you're up to it?
-
Alan,
Please provide scripture verses that support the notion of praying to dead people and they acting as a go between us and God. Why would God have the spirits of dead people doing for us? That's one of the jobs of His angels. And we know angels are not to be prayed to nor worshipped.
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points if you think you're up to it?
Floo doesn't make points: she asserts. and when I answer, she ignores it. Anyway, this thread is of no particular importance to me. I'm not duty-bound to post on every thread about Christianity, as you are. To you, it's part of your obsession!
-
Because it is a crazy idea which makes no sense!
Seem to remember that this argument has been used against a number of scientific matters, Floo. So, I'm not sure that it really holds water.
Are they the ones that have evidence to back them up?
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
Branches? Bollocks! There are no branches. Branch theory equals incoherent ecclesiology or fudge.
"I am the Vine, and you are the branches..."
Er......
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
Branches? Bollocks! There are no branches. Branch theory equals incoherent ecclesiology or fudge.
"I am the Vine, and you are the branches..."
Er......
I'm having problems tasting chocolate at the moment; but a bit of fudge goes down well! ;)
-
Prayers to Mary? Good grief no! I recall finding the sheet music to Ava Maria when going through the piano bench at my church one Saturday night. The next day before going to church I mentioned it to dad. He kinda frowned and then I told him I had put it in the garbage. "Fine" was his reply. I think dad had a few words with the music director that morning at church because he seemed to avoid me for weeks.
Don't be too quick to dismiss the concept of Mary being able to intercede between us and God to help with our needs. Mary can definitely see things from a different perspective in Heaven, and help in ways which we do not fully understand, and I have personally found out from my own experiences that the reciting of the rosary can be a very powerful prayer in many different ways. I am certain that Mary has a vested interest in helping people in this world.
-
#
The problem I have with that, Alan, is that I see nothing in Scripture that justifies it.
-
Alan,
Please provide scripture verses that support the notion of praying to dead people and they acting as a go between us and God. Why would God have the spirits of dead people doing for us? That's one of the jobs of His angels. And we know angels are not to be prayed to nor worshipped.
-
JC:
I'm with you 100%.
However, I have many Christian friends who are RC, and have worshipped with them; just as they have also worshipped in my church.
I don't understand Mariology, and have no interest in the RC concept of 'saint', finding no real scriptural basis for adoration or intercessory prayer.
Like you, I accept that prayer can be addressed to God alone.
However, I recognise the genuine devotion to Mary inculcated in many (though not all ) RC Christians, while having absolutely no part in it mysellf.
-
If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.
And what evidence do you have for it not being true?
HHHHHEEEEELLLLPPPP! Hope is morphing into "evidence wanted" Floo
-
Dear Powwow,
Popery and getting rid of old music sheets, you would not be out of place in sunny Glasgow, well as long as you walked like your shoelaces were tied together.
Hello hello you are a silly boy.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Powwow,
Popery and getting rid of old music sheets, you would not be out of place in sunny Glasgow, well as long as you walked like your shoelaces were tied together.
Hello hello you are a silly boy.
Gonnagle.
-
He won't understand the (so-called) musical reference, Gonners!
-
Hey Mr. Gonna,
Thanks for calling me boy. People are always telling me i look about 15yrs younger than I am. Walking like my shoelaces are tied together? No, being a halfbreed, I'm as sure footed as a mountain goat. And quiet too, a good stalker of prey. You think me chucking Ava Maria in the garbage is silly? Iv'e been to Scotlandlandshire grandpa, it was a hoot!!
-
If the story you 'know' isn't true then it really doesn't matter what speculations you ascribe to the characters that feature in the story.
And what evidence do you have for it not being true?
Is Gordon allowed to use 'supranatural' evidence?
-
Alan,
Please provide scripture verses that support the notion of praying to dead people and they acting as a go between us and God. Why would God have the spirits of dead people doing for us? That's one of the jobs of His angels. And we know angels are not to be prayed to nor worshipped.
-
JC:
I'm with you 100%.
However, I have many Christian friends who are RC, and have worshipped with them; just as they have also worshipped in my church.
I don't understand Mariology, and have no interest in the RC concept of 'saint', finding no real scriptural basis for adoration or intercessory prayer.
Like you, I accept that prayer can be addressed to God alone.
However, I recognise the genuine devotion to Mary inculcated in many (though not all ) RC Christians, while having absolutely no part in it mysellf.
I think that what is undeniable is that many Christians (RCs for example) have spiritual experiences that go beyond scripture. It may be as a result of expectation, but it feels very real, just as it feels real when you encounter Christ through scripture.
-
Hey Mr. Gonna,
Thanks for calling me boy. People are always telling me i look about 15yrs younger than I am. Walking like my shoelaces are tied together? No, being a halfbreed, I'm as sure footed as a mountain goat. And quiet too, a good stalker of prey. You think me chucking Ava Maria in the garbage is silly? Iv'e been to Scotlandlandshire grandpa, it was a hoot!!
It's only a piece of music with some poetry. It can't hurt you.
-
Dear Jim,
Powwow would make an excellent orangeman, hell!! That mob would probably allow him to carry his six shooter.
Dear Powwow,
Practice whistling As We go Marching through Georgia for the next time you visit our sunny shores.
Gonnagle.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
Branches? Bollocks! There are no branches. Branch theory equals incoherent ecclesiology or fudge.
"I am the Vine, and you are the branches..."
Er......
The Church is one. There is only one body of Christ , not thousands all preaching a different Gospel.
-
Is Gordon allowed to use 'supranatural' evidence?
I suppose it depends on whether he feels comfortable using it ;)
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points assertions if you think you're up to it?
FIFY, Shaker.
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points assertions if you think you're up to it?
FIFY, Shaker.
I'm still waiting for replies from you. You never answer anything difficult, and I suppose Floo has learned from you. Or is it the other way round?
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points assertions if you think you're up to it?
FIFY, Shaker.
You've done no such thing. If you want to make a statement of your own, make it without altering somebody else's posts to make them read what you want them to say rather than how they were originally written, especially in such a lazy and thoughtless manner as simply typing four letters and thinking you've made a point.
I don't do it to your posts; I expect the same of mine. String a sentence or two together in your own words, put some effort in, or don't bother and get back to your O-level in rattling a collection tin or whatever it is.
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points assertions if you think you're up to it?
FIFY, Shaker.
I'm still waiting for replies from you. You never answer anything difficult, and I suppose Floo has learned from you. Or is it the other way round?
Replies to what?
-
I don't do it to your posts; I expect the same of mine. String a sentence or two together in your own words, put some effort in, or don"t bother and get back to your O-level in rattling a collection tin or whatever it is.
Sorry, Shaker, but since I have done what you have suggested several times before - and not only myself, and had those carefully crafted sentences ignored, I thought I'd try a rather more direct method. By responding as you have, you have highlighted the very issue that several of us have been trying to get over to folk here for several months. Thanks.
-
Here's something original: instead of repeating the same word three times, why not have a go at answering Floo's points assertions if you think you're up to it?
FIFY, Shaker.
I'm still waiting for replies from you. You never answer anything difficult, and I suppose Floo has learned from you. Or is it the other way round?
Replies to what?
Excellent! As expected, play the dumb card - and you do it so well!
-
Ah; replies to nothing at all - as expected.
-
Sorry, Shaker, but since I have done what you have suggested several times before - and not only myself, and had those carefully crafted sentences ignored, I thought I'd try a rather more direct method.
Carefully crafted but without any substantive content and replete with howling logical fallacies if your usual performance is anything to go by.
-
Is Gordon allowed to use 'supranatural' evidence?
I suppose it depends on whether he feels comfortable using it ;)
Super - so, Hope, what would this 'supranatural evidence' look like, and how could I be sure it was valid in evidential terms?
-
Anchorman and grandpa Gonnagle,
Oh I have no doubts that I will find some Catholics in Heaven. My adopted family, dad's side, were not convinced of that. One branch were Presbyterians from Ballymoney the other Methodists from Wicklow. The southern branch were targeted by the Catholics. Why? Because they were anti Rome landowners. But no Gonna, Metis don't march!! We jig!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBX-uGon8F0
-
I believe she is extraordinary! We are haunted by Victorian-style images of motherhood displaying her as soft and meek, but I believe she must have been as hard as nails to do what she did. The magnificat shows her to be a true revolutionary who accepted with both hands the role she could play in bringing about a better world. She informs my socialism as well as my Catholicism, as does her son, who learned his values and his heritage at her knee.
Not really....
King James Bible
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
Then there is;-Simeon.
34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Mary was aware that something terrible was to befall, Christ.
Not hard as nails... she was like Abraham and Sara both whom knew and trusted the LORD.
Women of faith who knew that God planned only good and that Jesus was Gods Son.
A sword could not pierce through her soul if she was hard as nails...
-
Waiting for the BLACK MADONNA part.... ::)
-
OH WOW, this is too funny, you have to watch this lady jig to to the Red River Jig!!
I think I knew her in my wild days. She was a pole dancer in Indian Cabins or Paddle Prairie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0wUdVrqKE
-
Waiting for the BLACK MADONNA part.... ::)
Come on then, Sass, tell us all about them.
-
Alan,
Please provide scripture verses that support the notion of praying to dead people and they acting as a go between us and God. Why would God have the spirits of dead people doing for us? That's one of the jobs of His angels. And we know angels are not to be prayed to nor worshipped.
-
JC:
I'm with you 100%.
However, I have many Christian friends who are RC, and have worshipped with them; just as they have also worshipped in my church.
I don't understand Mariology, and have no interest in the RC concept of 'saint', finding no real scriptural basis for adoration or intercessory prayer.
Like you, I accept that prayer can be addressed to God alone.
However, I recognise the genuine devotion to Mary inculcated in many (though not all ) RC Christians, while having absolutely no part in it mysellf.
I concede that there are no scripture verses that support the concept of praying to souls in heaven. I just grew up with the notion that asking saints to intercede for us was normal, and was surprised when in my early twenties I discovered that not all Christians did this. But for me I can't deride it because I have found it to be successful on many occasions, but there is never any doubt in my mind that it is ultimately God's power which answers the prayers.
-
Absolutely, Alan. Like you, I know God hears every prayer we pray.
I. too was raised in a Christian tradition, though always allowed to explore faith for myself.
Although my mother (who raised me after my dad died when I was four) was a member of the Church of Scotland, she was adopted by a Roman Catholic couple....who continued to allow her to be a Kirk goer, from a very early age - a very unusual occurance (on either 'side') in the 1930s.
Consequently I grew oup without the sectarian bile which sadly infests the West of Scotland, and with many RC cousins who are more like blood brother and sisters to me (being an only child).
I've worshipped in RC churches since I was a child - I well remember the old Latin Mass, and being relieved that my cousins were just as baffled by it as I was!
That's why I used 'inculcated'. When I was a child, I stayed in their house (first in Govan, then Pollock, Gooners") and remember Marian statuettes from Lourdes in every bedroom.
I don't condemn anyone's devotion to the concept - but simply see no Scriptural basis for it.
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
Branches? Bollocks! There are no branches. Branch theory equals incoherent ecclesiology or fudge.
"I am the Vine, and you are the branches..."
Er......
The Church is one. There is only one body of Christ , not thousands all preaching a different Gospel.
-
And there is nothing in that Gospel to show the ongoing interest in the Marian veneration or the idea of a 'perpetual virgin'.
(Unless your version of the four Gospels differs from mine)
-
Alan,
Please provide scripture verses that support the notion of praying to dead people and they acting as a go between us and God. Why would God have the spirits of dead people doing for us? That's one of the jobs of His angels. And we know angels are not to be prayed to nor worshipped.
-
JC:
I'm with you 100%.
However, I have many Christian friends who are RC, and have worshipped with them; just as they have also worshipped in my church.
I don't understand Mariology, and have no interest in the RC concept of 'saint', finding no real scriptural basis for adoration or intercessory prayer.
Like you, I accept that prayer can be addressed to God alone.
However, I recognise the genuine devotion to Mary inculcated in many (though not all ) RC Christians, while having absolutely no part in it mysellf.
I concede that there are no scripture verses that support the concept of praying to souls in heaven. I just grew up with the notion that asking saints to intercede for us was normal, and was surprised when in my early twenties I discovered that not all Christians did this. But for me I can't deride it because I have found it to be successful on many occasions, but there is never any doubt in my mind that it is ultimately God's power which answers the prayers.
You cannot pray to dead people.
King James 2000 Bible
And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
The prayers of people on earth OT and NT ascended with incense.
9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
Incense always burned at the time of prayers in the Temple. The prayers of the saints ascended not praying to the saints... That is a made up Roman Catholic concept.
3Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. 4And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel's hand.
There is ONE intercessor between God and Man....
-
I'd agree with Hope on #27, but only add that there is not a shred of evidence that Mary remained a virgin contained in Scripture - and quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was the eldest of a series of siblings.
That's because you read the scriptures incorrectly, that is apart from the Church.
-
Apart from your branch of the Church?
Yes.
Other equally valid branches are available.
Branches? Bollocks! There are no branches. Branch theory equals incoherent ecclesiology or fudge.
"I am the Vine, and you are the branches..."
Er......
The Church is one. There is only one body of Christ , not thousands all preaching a different Gospel.
-
And there is nothing in that Gospel to show the ongoing interest in the Marian veneration or the idea of a 'perpetual virgin'.
(Unless your version of the four Gospels differs from mine)
The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.
-
The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.
Why? Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'? It implies that Jesus wasn't the only Son (or Daughter) of God, since we know that Jesus had siblings. This would therefore invalidate the whole Christian message, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God? Furthermore, if James and Jesus' other siblings were not purely human, why wern't they brought back to life after their deaths and taken back to heaven?
-
The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.
Why? Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?
Mary did NOT remain a virgin and she had other children.
-
Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?
-
The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.
Why? Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?
Because her womb had been consecrated for holy use, the ark of new covenant, where the Incarnation dwelt for nine months. Or an analogy I have often used is that of consecrating a chalice for the holy blood. It is improper for it to be used anymore as a regular drinking vessel.
-
It implies that Jesus wasn't the only Son (or Daughter) of God, since we know that Jesus had siblings. This would therefore invalidate the whole Christian message, as why would Jesus be resurrected and taken back to heaven but not James and the other siblings?
Eh?
-
It implies that Jesus wasn't the only Son (or Daughter) of God, since we know that Jesus had siblings. This would therefore invalidate the whole Christian message, as why would Jesus be resurrected and taken back to heaven but not James and the other siblings?
Eh?
If your explanation is correct, you should have any problem explaining this (or the amended version of the same post)
-
Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?
Bumped for ad_o's response.
-
The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.
Why? Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?
Because her womb had been consecrated for holy use, the ark of new covenant, where the Incarnation dwelt for nine months. Or an analogy I have often used is that of consecrating a chalice for the holy blood. It is improper for it to be used anymore as a regular drinking vessel.
-
Nice theological jargon.
You can, of course, give Gospel verses to confirm them?
-
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
-
Alas :(
-
Or an analogy I have often used is that of consecrating a chalice for the holy blood. It is improper for it to be used anymore as a regular drinking vessel.
But even the 'chalice for the holy blood' is washed out with ordinary water. That alone would 'contaminate' the chalice. In other words, it isn't the vessel that is holy but the contents.
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
Yup; it's the 21st Century, and there are still people around who believe that science is the be-all and end-all.
-
Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?
Bumped for ad_o's response.
It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.
-
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.
That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
-
It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.
Sola Scriptura is rather like the understanding that 'faith without works is dead', ad_o. In other words, any Church tradition that contradicts Scripture, or isn't supported by Scripture, should be questioned. This is the case with your idea of perpetual virginity. The reason scripture doesn't contradict the idea is because it never even mentions it, something that one would expect it to do if the idea was true. Lack of reference to something isn't proof of that something.
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
Yup; it's the 21st Century, and there are still people around who believe that science is the be-all and end-all.
Well at least scientists have to provide evidence to back up their claims, unlike theists who have no evidence whatsoever for theirs!
-
It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.
Sola Scriptura is rather like the understanding that 'faith without works is dead', ad_o. In other words, any Church tradition that contradicts Scripture, or isn't supported by Scripture, should be questioned. This is the case with your idea of perpetual virginity. The reason scripture doesn't contradict the idea is because it never even mentions it, something that one would expect it to do if the idea was true. Lack of reference to something isn't proof of that something.
That's just a non sequitur.
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood. If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.
Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently. You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.
I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain. Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.
You must ask yourself, would you risk it?
-
Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?
Bumped for ad_o's response.
It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.
-
Er.....
I didn't ask if you had Scripture which contradicted Mary's 'perpetual virginity'. I asked if there were any Scriptures CONFIRMING it?
I take it that's a 'no', then?
There are no such scriptures, and therefore nothing to confirm your position save 'tradition'?
-
I don't think it unreasonable for AM to take the point of view that Joseph and Mary had sex and produced other children, assuming that there's a possibility that they are historical characters.
One thing that differs in paganism/Goddess spirituality is the understanding that every womb is sacred. No exceptions.
-
That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
ad_o, 'The Lord' is God; 'my Lord' is David. Yes, I accept that this Psalm is also one of the messianic Psalms, but you have to be careful that you don't read overmuch into it. Otherwise you make out that God is talking to himnself - since Jesus is God in human form.
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood. If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.
Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently. You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.
I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain. Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.
You must ask yourself, would you risk it?
I don't think that really applies any more. I can only think of a handful of Christians that I've encountered who think that Christianity is about avoiding hell. Faith as most people encounter it is much more about finding a sense of support, meaning and structure - yes, even love - in this life. Of course losing that is scary - been there, done that - but it is losing your whole understanding of your existence and not knowing what to do next. Worrying about the next life barely figures.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
-
What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood. If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.
Unfortunately, for you jj, it isn't "all rubbish from start to finish". There is a considerable amount of historical fact in the Bible, in the same way that there is a considerable amount of poetry, theology and revelation. To assume that 'it's all rubbish from start to finish' is to actually show your lack of education.
Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently. You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.
You could have equally started this paragraph with word 'society', jj.
I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain. Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.
You must ask yourself, would you risk it?
This anaology points out just how blind you are yourself. When you add the other assertions you've provided in this post, tht blindness becomes even more apparent. I suspect its a confirmation bias blindness.
-
Faith as most people encounter it is much more about finding a sense of support, meaning and structure - yes, even love - in this life. Of course losing that is scary - been there, done that - but it is losing your whole understanding of your existence and not knowing what to do next. Worrying about the next life barely figures.
Not even sure that this is applicable nowadays. For many who I know, its more the meaning and purpose, rather than support or structure, though the element of support often comes later - sometimes as a 'supporter', rather than a 'supported'.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Every womb is sacred, I don't think any sane person could argue that fact, I find all this Mary and Virgin birth stuff puzzling, it's as if Our Lord, Our Salvation needs credentials.
Gonnagle.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
In the time of, Galileo, people were put in front of the Church authorities if they as much as hinted the Earth was not the centre of the Universe. Flying was a dream; computers, space travel tv and radio, were not considered; the immense advancement in technology was beyond even the greatest minds. Yet here we are now, with all those things and many more, everyday matters. What further advancements and realisations will be achieved in, say, the next century? To dismiss anything now, that seems impossible, is both ignorant and arrogant.. Everyone should have an open mind. My favourite Shakespeare quote is as apposite as ever: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
It has also been said, I forget by whom, "When a distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!
Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.
-
Faith as most people encounter it is much more about finding a sense of support, meaning and structure - yes, even love - in this life. Of course losing that is scary - been there, done that - but it is losing your whole understanding of your existence and not knowing what to do next. Worrying about the next life barely figures.
Not even sure that this is applicable nowadays. For many who I know, its more the meaning and purpose, rather than support or structure, though the element of support often comes later - sometimes as a 'supporter', rather than a 'supported'.
You are ignoring the fact I mentioned 'meaning'. What is love, if not meaningful? And without the structure - not only a framework of belief, but organisations to join and the friendships and contacts that come with them, including the needy - being a supporter in a Christian context isn't easy.
And many posters here have spoken movingly of the support they get from their faith and experiences. Don't put down their truth just to disagree with me.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!
Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.
Is it anything to do with me?
-
In the time of, Galileo, people were put in front of the Church authorities if they as much as hinted the Earth was not the centre of the Universe. Flying was a dream; computers, space travel tv and radio, were not considered; the immense advancement in technology was beyond even the greatest minds. Yet here we are now, with all those things and many more, everyday matters. What further advancements and realisations will be achieved in, say, the next century?
By definition we can't know, but we can be absolutely certain about one thing - whatever developments come along long after we're all dead and burnt or buried, they'll all, without exception, be made on the same basis as the ones you mention: by intelligent people thinking rationally about stuff and working it out, logically and clearly, using their brains and not their knees, their reason and not their faith.
To dismiss anything now, that seems impossible, is both ignorant and arrogant.. Everyone should have an open mind. My favourite Shakespeare quote is as apposite as ever: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
It has also been said, I forget by whom, "When a distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Since you like quotes so much, here's one for the collection: "Keep an open mind, but not so much so that your brains fall out."
-
In the time of, Galileo, people were put in front of the Church authorities if they as much as hinted the Earth was not the centre of the Universe. Flying was a dream; computers, space travel tv and radio, were not considered; the immense advancement in technology was beyond even the greatest minds. Yet here we are now, with all those things and many more, everyday matters. What further advancements and realisations will be achieved in, say, the next century?
By definition we can't know, but we can be absolutely certain about one thing - whatever developments come along long after we're all dead and burnt or buried, they'll all, without exception, be made on the same basis as the ones you mention: by intelligent people thinking rationally about stuff and working it out, logically and clearly, using their brains and not their knees, their reason and not their faith.
To dismiss anything now, that seems impossible, is both ignorant and arrogant.. Everyone should have an open mind. My favourite Shakespeare quote is as apposite as ever: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
It has also been said, I forget by whom, "When a distinguished scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Since you like quotes so much, here's one for the collection: "Keep an open mind, but not so much so that your brains fall out."
Sd to say, you are one of those who would have condemned the likes of Galileo. But I would expect such an answer. We know nothing, and to rule out anything is pure arrogance.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!
Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.
Is it anything to do with me?
You, of course.
-
Dear Shaker,
There is no faith in science, scientists don't have faith in their work, here's a truth for you, scientists put their trousers on just like me, one leg after the other.
Gonnagle.
-
Sd to say, you are one of those who would have condemned the likes of Galileo.
Really now? Galileo was a scientist and a thinking man - who did the condemning?
We know nothing
You may not, but other people are not similarly handicapped.
-
Dear Shaker,
There is no faith in science, scientists don't have faith in their work, here's a truth for you, scientists put their trousers on just like me, one leg after the other.
Gonnagle.
I put both legs in one pant the other day. I bet plenty of scientists, and others, do that as well! :)
-
What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood. If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.
Unfortunately, for you jj, it isn't "all rubbish from start to finish". There is a considerable amount of historical fact in the Bible, in the same way that there is a considerable amount of poetry, theology and revelation. To assume that 'it's all rubbish from start to finish' is to actually show your lack of education.
Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently. You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.
You could have equally started this paragraph with word 'society', jj.
I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain. Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.
You must ask yourself, would you risk it?
This anaology points out just how blind you are yourself. When you add the other assertions you've provided in this post, tht blindness becomes even more apparent. I suspect its a confirmation bias blindness.
Of course there's a lot of historical fact in the Bible, Hope, just as there is in Shakespeare and Dickens! Most writers add known facts to try to make their story believable, but that says nothing to substantiate your claim that the 'miracle' happenings are anything but fictional! Unfortunately for you, it shows your education was sadly inhibited by your confirmation bias!
There were no assertions in that post, I was telling Ippy that it was the way I see it, not the way it is! In fact I was trying to show him that it isn't that theists are ignorant or stupid, any more than smokers are when they try to convince themselves that smoking does you no harm. It is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to change the habits of a lifetime.
And yes, you could say I have a confirmation bas, because everything I see, read and experience leads me to the conclusion that the Bible was written purely to keep people in order. We now have laws, fines and imprisonment as our sticks and a reasonable peaceful life as our carrot!
.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
-
Nope.
It's to do with it not being in Scripture.
Anything else might well be considered heresy in some quarters.
While you're looking for Scripture to justify your'perpetual virgin' theory, find similar scriptures which justify icons, statues, etc.
Thanks.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
-
Nope.
It's to do with it not being in Scripture.
Anything else might well be considered heresy in some quarters.
Sola scriptura divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church making it impossible to understand them properly. That, along with Protestantisms inherent Iconoclasm, is why Protestants do not believe the Blessed Theotokos is ever-virgin. They are embarrassed by the Incarnation and its consequences.
-
Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.
-
Sola scriptura divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church making it impossible to understand them properly. That, along with Protestantisms inherent Iconoclasm, is why Protestants do not believe the Blessed Theotokos is ever-virgin. They are embarrassed by the Incarnation and its consequences.
Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but in my experience, sola scriptura integrally ties the life of the church to scripture. Hence, ideas like perpetual virginity are tested against scripture - as per instructions in scripture - and found to be wanting.
-
Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.
That's the problem then, innit. You reject life of the Church which is the work of the Holy Spirit, from which the scriptures come, for the scriptures are the work of the Church. You can't reject the life of the Church without rejecting the scriptures also and each part is integral to understanding the faith.
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/09/orthodox-theology-in-symphonic-harmony/
-
Sola scriptura divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church making it impossible to understand them properly. That, along with Protestantisms inherent Iconoclasm, is why Protestants do not believe the Blessed Theotokos is ever-virgin. They are embarrassed by the Incarnation and its consequences.
Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but in my experience, sola scriptura integrally ties the life of the church to scripture. Hence, ideas like perpetual virginity are tested against scripture - as per instructions in scripture - and found to be wanting.
Nonsense. Each person merely becomes their own pope. Each person interprets scripture according to his own whims (for even heretics "prove" their doctrines using scripture) rather than collectively guarding the faith that has been handed down.
-
Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.
That's the problem then, innit. You reject life of the Church which is the work of the Holy Spirit, from which the scriptures come, for the scriptures are the work of the Church. You can't reject the life of the Church without rejecting the scriptures also and each part is integral to understanding the faith.
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/09/orthodox-theology-in-symphonic-harmony/
-
You know, ad_o, there's an organisation based in Brooklyn - the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as 'Jehovah Witnessess', who argue exactly the same way as you. They issue doctrine which, they claim, is from 'Holy Spirit' (or 'dynamic energy' - you takes your money...)
Why should the casual reader accept ypur stance rather than theirs?
Wouldn't a careful reading of a good translation of Scripture back up one stance or t'other?
Yet you refuse to show any such Scripture that backs a 'perpetual virgin' claim, simply returning to what the church, rather than the document on which it is supposed to be based, says.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
NO NO NO! The rejection of Mary's perpetual viginity is because it is arrant rubbish!
Go away. It's got nothing to do with you.
Bonkers all the three of you, this stuff is all absolutely inconsequential drivel.
ippy
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.
Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?
-
Still dodging the issue, then?
You cannot argue your point from Scripture, since there IS no Scripture - the foundation of the Christian faith.
You fall back on church councils and tradition which many, including myself, reject as being antithetical to scripture and, therefore, invalid.
That's the problem then, innit. You reject life of the Church which is the work of the Holy Spirit, from which the scriptures come, for the scriptures are the work of the Church. You can't reject the life of the Church without rejecting the scriptures also and each part is integral to understanding the faith.
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/09/orthodox-theology-in-symphonic-harmony/
-
You know, ad_o, there's an organisation based in Brooklyn - the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as 'Jehovah Witnessess', who argue exactly the same way as you. They issue doctrine which, they claim, is from 'Holy Spirit' (or 'dynamic energy' - you takes your money...)
Why should the casual reader accept your stance rather than theirs?
Wouldn't a careful reading of a good translation of Scripture back up one stance or t'other?
Yet you refuse to show any such Scripture that backs a 'perpetual virgin' claim, simply returning to what the church, rather than the document on which it is supposed to be based, says.
The Church isn't founded on the scriptures. It is founded on the Incarnation. If you think you separate the scriptures from the life of the Church then, quite frankly, you're mad. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos doesn't need to be explicit in the scriptures because it is already implicit in figures (the Ark of the Covenant) and the natural consequence of the Incarnation itself.
As for the authority of the Church, I'll throw it right back at you. Why should I accept your stance above the Church? Why should I accept personal opinion above the mind of the Church? As I said, even heretics use the scriptures to "prove" their doctrines so there must be an authority that can judge which one is actually orthodox and which one is heterodox. You accept the Creed yet reject the authority on which formulated it. It's no good just saying you accept it just because it's scriptural. Who says so? Ever heard of Arius? Sola scriptura is a joke.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.
Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?
I already pointed this out. It's an idiom. All it's meant to prove is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Nothing less nothing more. I gave another example from the scriptures that uses the same idiom. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstall. Are you going to argue then that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father? Blessed Jerome goes into some depth on this in his tract against the heretic Helvidius.
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
Incidentally, some neo-pagans include Mary in their pantheon, especially those who follow a Goddess path.
Rhiannon
There is an interesting quote from Jung's "Answer to Job" (a fascinating book to which Jack Knave and I have recently been referring):
" One could have known for a long time that there was a deep longing in the masses for an intercessor and mediatrix who would at last take her place alongside the Holy Trinity and be received as the ‘Queen of heaven and Bride at the heavenly court.’ For more than a thousand years it has been taken for granted that the Mother of God dwelt there. I consider it to be the most important religious event since the Reformation. " (Jung: Answer to Job)
I have often poo-pooed the rather literal way that Catholics seem to approach this doctrine, even more so since it is one of the only two infallible statements made by all the Popes of history. However, Jung is viewing the whole matter as providing a more integrated view of the godhead - all these matters not being objective realities (as Catholics believe), but simply workings within the human psyche itself.
On the simplest level, this suggests that patriarchal societies with exclusively male gods are psychologically more than a little unbalanced - as we can see in some of the loathsome violence done to women in countries where fundamentalist Islam is the dominant faith, such as Afghanistan.
I'll leave it to the Jung expert Jack Knave to amplify, if he's around. Just so long as a certain BA doesn't start pissing around with his infantile comments.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.
Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?
I already pointed this out. It's an idiom. All it's meant to prove is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Nothing less nothing more. I gave another example from the scriptures that uses the same idiom. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstall. Are you going to argue then that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father? Blessed Jerome goes into some depth on this in his tract against the heretic Helvidius.
Ah I see! God got Mary pregnant with a turkey baster!
Definition of a heretic - anyone who disagrees with Ad O's version of Christian doctrine.
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine, and Mary is not divine
You see, this is the kind of literalism that I've just been referring to above. It's not really a question of what God or Mary are or are not. It's a question of how humanity perceives them, and how these things work in their lives. I'd say most believers have a tendency to regard their God as "He" - after all, Christ was a bloke. I know perfectly well that in some parts of the Bible, God is depicted with feminine characteristics (and I believe the ancient Yahweh seems to have had a female consort), and that the God of many of the Christian mystics is not at all a "He". But yer ordinary believers, guvnor, that's a different matter.
-
Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.
Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.
I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.
Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.
Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?
I already pointed this out. It's an idiom. All it's meant to prove is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Nothing less nothing more. I gave another example from the scriptures that uses the same idiom. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstall. Are you going to argue then that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
Thanks for this, AO. It's not quite the same phrase though, is it? In Psalm 110 (and its quotation in Hebrews 1) it surely has the meaning of "while". There is it is ἕως ἂν whereas in Mt 1:25 it is ἕως οὗ. Whether this is important, I am not sure, but the Psalm 110/Hebrews 1 meaning cannot surely apply to Mt 1:25 anyway. "While" does not fit into Mt 1:25 in any sensible manner. If you wish to use Psalm 110 as an example of why "until" is a wrong translation, then your example needs to be usable in the translation Mt 1:25 and, unless I have missed something, it can't.
How should Mt 1:25 be translated, bearing in mind that it includes reference to Mary giving birth to Jesus. Why did Matthew not just say, "he did not know her (ever)" rather than "he did not know her (until/your word) she bore a son..."?
-
As I said, it's an idiom. I strongly suggest reading Blessed Jerome's tract.
-
As I said, it's an idiom. I strongly suggest reading Blessed Jerome's tract.
OK, done that. I think you've suggested this a previous time. It was familiar.
One of the arguments Jerome put forward was, "But when he continues, the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine, I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa, his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome, or (as I certainly might) Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death, must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says In sheol who shall give you thanks?"
We do need to be careful, all of us including me, when we are comparing Greek constructions (and Hebrew) and English. However, there does seem to be a significant difference between Jerome's argument and what is said in Mt 1:25. Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary until she bore a son. None of Jerome's examples have that negative (that I could see). Thus there is a significant difference between:
1) Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa.
2) I did not dine in harbour until I sailed to Africa.
Better would be
a) Before eating the fish and chips, I set sail for Africa.
b) I did not eat the fish and chips until I set sail for Africa.
As Jerome argues a) does not clearly tell us whether I ever ate the fish and chips, but b), with its negative, does indeed imply that I did. Mt 1:25 has that negative in it.
That is one area, at least, where Jerome's argument falls down, at least in English (as does the Psalm 110 comparison).
It might indeed be that Mary remained a virgin, but Mt 1:25 seems to say that she did not. If it is important to us whether she did, then I would have thought that the NT-writers would have made more of it and said it.
Might be wrong though
-
Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?
As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine, and Mary is not divine
You see, this is the kind of literalism that I've just been referring to above. It's not really a question of what God or Mary are or are not. It's a question of how humanity perceives them, and how these things work in their lives. I'd say most believers have a tendency to regard their God as "He" - after all, Christ was a bloke. I know perfectly well that in some parts of the Bible, God is depicted with feminine characteristics (and I believe the ancient Yahweh seems to have had a female consort), and that the God of many of the Christian mystics is not at all a "He". But yer ordinary believers, guvnor, that's a different matter.
See Hildegarde of Bingen.
I think it startling that patriarchy seems to have become more entrenched since her time. Not just Jesus being a bloke - I've heard it said that the Holy Spirit is 'definitely male' and for all Christians generally declare God to be both male and female any attempt to introduce feminine names for God is generally met by many of those I know with eye-rolling and sniggering at 'irrelevant attempts to be PC'.
-
ad_o:
You wrote:
The Church isn't founded on the scriptures. It is founded on the Incarnation. If you think you separate the scriptures from the life of the Church then, quite frankly, you're mad. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos doesn't need to be explicit in the scriptures because it is already implicit in figures (the Ark of the Covenant) and the natural consequence of the Incarnation itself.
-
er....and where do we find stuff about the Incarnation, the Ark of the Covenant&, etc, if not in the Scriptures?
I rest my case.
-
As for the authority of the Church, I'll throw it right back at you. Why should I accept your stance above the Church? Why should I accept personal opinion above the mind of the Church? As I said, even heretics use the scriptures to "prove" their doctrines so there must be an authority that can judge which one is actually orthodox and which one is heterodox. You accept the Creed yet reject the authority on which formulated it. It's no good just saying you accept it just because it's scriptural. Who says so? Ever heard of Arius? Sola scriptura is a joke.
[/quote]
-
Because the church speaks with many voices. It is not a movement, or an organisation, or (thank God) a theology club for clergy; it is God's people, coming from various faith stances. If a governing body 'imposes' what it thinks doctrine must be now and always, on everyone, then that stifles our growth and understanding, and makes us little better than JWs.
* - I may have missed a bit when I read the Pentateuch for the umpteenth time: so, what the blood and stomach pills has the Ark of the Covenant got to do with the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary?
-
The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.
-
The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.
-
Phew:
I thought I'd missed a Christophany there - but I didn't.
All I missed was a reading of the Ark story which really isn't there.
There is nothing there to prove your idea, simply wishful thinking on the part of a theologian.
-
It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?
ippy
What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood. If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.
Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently. You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.
I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain. Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.
You must ask yourself, would you risk it?
Yes indoctrination is a powerfull wepon, don't these religios know it, you try to get them out of our educational system, you'd almost need to go nuclear to do it.
It's the youngest children they're after, before they have acquired the ability to challenge, they're the most vunerable and the religious vultures are well aware of this and see them as the next sad generation of our resident delusional community.
ippy
-
The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.
Mad.
Ippy
-
I know you are.
-
I know you are.
That's given. :)
-
I know you are.
That's the sort of response that would embarrass six-year-olds at break time.
Between the astonshing array of arse gravy that you purport to believe in (which seems to change on a fairly regular basis according to which dogmatic and authoritarian, do-your-thinking-for-you brand of Christianity you're claiming as the absolute and final truth this particular month) and anything that ippy has ever written, any rational visitor to this forum will have no difficulty whatever in discerning who's mad, and it ain't ippy.
-
That's the sort of response that would embarrass six-year-olds at break time.
That's because you're a boring old fart.
Between the astonshing array of arse gravy that you purport to believe in (which seems to change on a fairly regular basis according to which dogmatic and authoritarian, do-your-thinking-for-you brand of Christianity you're claiming as the absolute and final truth this particular month) and anything that ippy has ever written, any rational visitor to this forum will have no difficulty whatever in discerning who's mad, and it ain't ippy.
You exaggerate, having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy. Go away!
-
Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?
Wasn't it some one religious?
-
You exaggerate, having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy. Go away!
Having nothing of substance to say is better than talking perpetual rubbish.
-
Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?
Wasn't it some one religious?
Probably! Fortunately I escaped! ::)
-
That's because you're a boring old fart.
Better a boring old fart than a dribbling mentalist.
You exaggerate
So you deny, then, that the Orthodontic Church or whatever you call it as the final suppository of all divine truth, holy, pure, perfect and immutable, isn't spoken about by you now in the exact same terms in which you spoke of Catholicism - when was it? Earlier this year? Last year? Eighteen months ago?
having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy.
Here's a recent post of mine:
The measure of a body's reflectivity is known as its albedo. Earth's albedo varies; liquid water isn't that strongly reflective whereas ice at the poles and white cloud are - in the latter case this is why Venus is so amazingly bright in the sky first and last thing in the day, since it's shrouded in thick white cloud that throws back so much of the sunlight it receives. Moon dust is a light grey, which gives it a reasonably high albedo when it reflects light, as it does in the case of a full moon for instance.
and here's a recent post of yours, posted not only on the same day (yesterday) but within a few hours:
The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.
If that's what passes for "substance" in your world you know where you can keep it - somewhere warm, safe and brown.
Go away!
No, I will not. I am entitled to be a member here as much as you are and to post as I see fit so long as I remain within the terms of the house rules as maintained and enforced by the moderation team. That means that I will not be going away, I will not be shutting up, I will not be keeping silent, I will not be ceasing to challenge, criticise, mock, point and stare at, fold, spindle, mutilate and generally piss all over idiotic and irrational balls, bullshit, bollocks and poppycock wherever I find it.
-
Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?
Wasn't it some one religious?
Probably! Fortunately I escaped! ::)
IIRC, 'twas Aristotle. “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.
-
IIRC, 'twas Aristotle. “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.
It's often attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, in view of which it is more aptly abbreviated to "Give me a child."
-
Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?
Wasn't it some one religious?
Probably! Fortunately I escaped! ::)
IIRC, 'twas Aristotle. “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.
Nowadays that statement is generally attributed to both male and female, and often used in a religious context. I escaped from the shackles of my religious upbringing thank goodness.
-
It's often attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, in view of which it is more aptly abbreviated to "Give me a child."
In fact, it's often attributed to a whole host of people, Shaker. The Jesuits; Francis Xavier; Loyola. Even Hitler and other dictators have used the principles behind the comment.
-
Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?
Wasn't it some one religious?
Probably! Fortunately I escaped! ::)
IIRC, 'twas Aristotle. “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.
Nowadays that statement is generally attributed to both male and female, and often used in a religious context. I escaped from the shackles of my religious upbringing thank goodness.
-
What has your (oft repeated) view got to do with the title of the thread or the O/P?
-
It's often attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, in view of which it is more aptly abbreviated to "Give me a child."
In fact, it's often attributed to a whole host of people, Shaker. The Jesuits; Francis Xavier; Loyola. Even Hitler and other dictators have used the principles behind the comment.
Yes; that's because they understand that if you inject crap (i.e. religious beliefs) into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable - which is to say, prior to the acquisition of critical and sceptical thinking skills - it's that much more difficult to dislodge.
-
That's the sort of response that would embarrass six-year-olds at break time.
That's because you're a boring old fart.
Between the astonshing array of arse gravy that you purport to believe in (which seems to change on a fairly regular basis according to which dogmatic and authoritarian, do-your-thinking-for-you brand of Christianity you're claiming as the absolute and final truth this particular month) and anything that ippy has ever written, any rational visitor to this forum will have no difficulty whatever in discerning who's mad, and it ain't ippy.
You exaggerate, having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy. Go away!
Do try rational sometimes A O.
ippy
-
Nowadays that statement is generally attributed to both male and female, and often used in a religious context. I escaped from the shackles of my religious upbringing thank goodness.
I suspect it was applied to both, back in Aristotle's time. I was asking what you escaped from within the context of Aristotle's coining of the phrase. I'm not aware that that had any religious context to it.
-
Yes; that's because they understand that if you inject crap (i.e. religious beliefs) into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable - which is to say, prior to the acquisition of critical and sceptical thinking skills - it's that much more difficult to dislodge.
And unfortunately, modern education can also be accused of 'injecting' stuff into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable.
-
Nowadays that statement is generally attributed to both male and female, and often used in a religious context. I escaped from the shackles of my religious upbringing thank goodness.
I suspect it was applied to both, back in Aristotle's time. I was asking what you escaped from within the context of Aristotle's coining of the phrase. I'm not aware that that had any religious context to it.
Well I have heard it used in a religious context quite often!
-
Yes; that's because they understand that if you inject crap (i.e. religious beliefs) into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable - which is to say, prior to the acquisition of critical and sceptical thinking skills - it's that much more difficult to dislodge.
And unfortunately, modern education can also be accused of 'injecting' stuff into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable.
Yes - stuff like learning to read and write, being able to do sums, useful (indeed vital) stuff like that.
-
Well I have heard it used in a religious context quite often!
I've practically only ever heard it in a religious context, hence the attribution to Loyola.
-
Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?
Wasn't it some one religious?
Probably! Fortunately I escaped! ::)
IIRC, 'twas Aristotle. “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.
No, that was Michael Jackson (allegedly)
-
Yes; that's because they understand that if you inject crap (i.e. religious beliefs) into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable - which is to say, prior to the acquisition of critical and sceptical thinking skills - it's that much more difficult to dislodge.
And unfortunately, modern education can also be accused of 'injecting' stuff into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable.
Yes - stuff like learning to read and write, being able to do sums, useful (indeed vital) stuff like that.
I rather think the problem with English education is what's not in it after that unspeakably appalling libertarian secular humanist Chris Woodhead fucked up education.
-
Dearest Auntie,
Aye!! But I don't see any if anything replacing this totally bad religious rubbish.
This secular society teaches, dog eat dog, I'am alright Jack, Maths is more important than Mathew 7, it is a scandal!!
Teaching our kids that putting the comma in the proper place is more important than how we treat our fellow man.
Never mind!! We reap what we sow, we can all sit back and bask in the rosy glow that we are fostering the next generation of Tory voters.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes - stuff like learning to read and write, being able to do sums, useful (indeed vital) stuff like that.
Well, if you regard such things as crap, that's for you to decide. As a teacher, I don't; in the same way that I don't regard science, religious belief, history, geography, citizenship, cookery, RE, woodwork, sport and all the other school and non-school subjects we have, as 'crap'.
-
That's because you're a boring old fart.
Better a boring old fart than a dribbling mentalist.
You exaggerate
So you deny, then, that the Orthodontic Church or whatever you call it as the final suppository of all divine truth, holy, pure, perfect and immutable, isn't spoken about by you now in the exact same terms in which you spoke of Catholicism - when was it? Earlier this year? Last year? Eighteen months ago?
having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy.
Here's a recent post of mine:
The measure of a body's reflectivity is known as its albedo. Earth's albedo varies; liquid water isn't that strongly reflective whereas ice at the poles and white cloud are - in the latter case this is why Venus is so amazingly bright in the sky first and last thing in the day, since it's shrouded in thick white cloud that throws back so much of the sunlight it receives. Moon dust is a light grey, which gives it a reasonably high albedo when it reflects light, as it does in the case of a full moon for instance.
and here's a recent post of yours, posted not only on the same day (yesterday) but within a few hours:
The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.
If that's what passes for "substance" in your world you know where you can keep it - somewhere warm, safe and brown.
Go away!
No, I will not. I am entitled to be a member here as much as you are and to post as I see fit so long as I remain within the terms of the house rules as maintained and enforced by the moderation team. That means that I will not be going away, I will not be shutting up, I will not be keeping silent, I will not be ceasing to challenge, criticise, mock, point and stare at, fold, spindle, mutilate and generally piss all over idiotic and irrational balls, bullshit, bollocks and poppycock wherever I find it.
Agreed - in spades! And far more politely than I could have done!
-
Yes - stuff like learning to read and write, being able to do sums, useful (indeed vital) stuff like that.
Well, if you regard such things as crap, that's for you to decide. As a teacher, I don't; in the same way that I don't regard science, religious belief, history, geography, citizenship, cookery, RE, woodwork, sport and all the other school and non-school subjects we have, as 'crap'.
Shaker didn't say learning to read, write and do sums was crap! ::)
-
Dearest Auntie,
Aye!! But I don't see any if anything replacing this totally bad religious rubbish.
This secular society teaches, dog eat dog, I'am alright Jack, Maths is more important than Mathew 7, it is a scandal!!
Teaching our kids that putting the comma in the proper place is more important than how we treat our fellow man.
Never mind!! We reap what we sow, we can all sit back and bask in the rosy glow that we are fostering the next generation of Tory voters.
Gonnagle.
You still don't get secularism, why? It's not complicated and it doesn't rule out having a belief in whatever you might wish to have a belief in.
All secularism does is it ensures no one line of thought has a privilaged position over any other, it appears you think secularism is anti religion, why's that Gonners?
ippy
-
Dearest Auntie,
Aye!! But I don't see any if anything replacing this totally bad religious rubbish.
This secular society teaches, dog eat dog, I'am alright Jack, Maths is more important than Mathew 7, it is a scandal!!
Teaching our kids that putting the comma in the proper place is more important than how we treat our fellow man.
Never mind!! We reap what we sow, we can all sit back and bask in the rosy glow that we are fostering the next generation of Tory voters.
Gonnagle.
Sorry, Gonners, but that's bullshit. Secularism isn't selfish, and nor does our education system foster it. If you want to look to where much of our selfishness comes from consider our media, with its programmes encouraging buy to let as get-rich-quick and current affairs convincing us we all face a future of poverty. It's fear that makes people pull up the ladder.
Or maybe we can look at people like Katie Cutler, the late Stephen Sutton, or these young people.
http://www.peopleshealthtrust.org.uk/news/news-stories/inspirational-young-people-honoured-house-lords-connecting-communities-awards
We have remarkable young people in our society, some religious, like Malala, some not. You do all of them a disservice with your cynicism.
-
Yes - stuff like learning to read and write, being able to do sums, useful (indeed vital) stuff like that.
Well, if you regard such things as crap, that's for you to decide. As a teacher, I don't; in the same way that I don't regard science, religious belief, history, geography, citizenship, cookery, RE, woodwork, sport and all the other school and non-school subjects we have, as 'crap'.
If your are a teacher I hope (no pun intended) that you read your teaching material far better than you do posts like the one this response is to.
If you don't then God alone knows what bollocks you are teaching your sttudents.
-
Shaker didn't say learning to read, write and do sums was crap! ::)
Floo, read his post again. He lists them within a context (of his own making) whereby he refers to "injecting" ideas 'into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable'.
-
Shaker didn't say learning to read, write and do sums was crap! ::)
Floo, read his post again. He lists them within a context (of his own making) whereby he refers to "injecting" ideas 'into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable'.
That's an impressive twist of what Shaker actually meant, Hope, even by your high standards.
-
If your are a teacher I hope (no pun intended) that you read your teaching material far better than you do posts like the one this response is to.
Yes, I do tend to read through the context of my teaching material, something you obviously haven't done here.
-
Dear ippy,
Fair enough, maybe secular is the wrong word, but I know what I am talking about.
The child must be indoctrinated, like the two times table, the Second Greatest Commandment must be drummed into them, never mind the God stuff, they can make their own minds up about that.
Dear Rhiannon,
Oh I know it is not all doom and gloom, but priorities must shift in schools, the real Important stuff must be taught and teaching any child to love thy neighbour is one of the real important lessons, it must become second nature, that is how we will defeat greed and poverty.
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
-
Shaker didn't say learning to read, write and do sums was crap! ::)
Floo, read his post again. He lists them within a context (of his own making) whereby he refers to "injecting" ideas 'into a child while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable'.
Shaker will correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure he meant proselytising!
-
That's an impressive twist of what Shaker actually meant, Hope, even by your high standards.
Not really; within the context of the enchange between the two of us, he is suggesting that certain stuff that a child is taught 'while it's young enough to be impressionable and its mind malleable' is 'crap'. I simply pointed out what I regard as not being crap. I appreciate that one of my items matched his example.
-
"injecting" children. This is what every Marxist state does. They have children so screwed up they become the government's little spies in the home. Indoctrinated children, willing to report on their own parents political and religious opinions and activities.
-
No, I will not. I am entitled to be a member here as much as you are and to post as I see fit so long as I remain within the terms of the house rules as maintained and enforced by the moderation team. That means that I will not be going away, I will not be shutting up, I will not be keeping silent, I will not be ceasing to challenge, criticise, mock, point and stare at, fold, spindle, mutilate and generally piss all over idiotic and irrational balls, bullshit, bollocks and poppycock wherever I find it.
The best place to start is your own head then, innit, because it's full of crap.
-
"injecting" children. This is what every Marxist state does. They have children so screwed up they become the government's little spies in the home. Indoctrinated children, willing to report on their own parents political and religious opinions and activities.
As do extremist theists!
Mind you, children should be encouraged to report their parents if they are being abused by them in any way!
-
No, I will not. I am entitled to be a member here as much as you are and to post as I see fit so long as I remain within the terms of the house rules as maintained and enforced by the moderation team. That means that I will not be going away, I will not be shutting up, I will not be keeping silent, I will not be ceasing to challenge, criticise, mock, point and stare at, fold, spindle, mutilate and generally piss all over idiotic and irrational balls, bullshit, bollocks and poppycock wherever I find it.
Whilst I fully agree with the sentiments you express here, Shaker, you need to remember that others here will just as vigorously "challenge, criticise, mock, point and stare at, fold, spindle, mutilate and generally piss all over idiotic and irrational balls, bullshit, bollocks and poppycock" when they believe it is emanating from your good self.
-
Dear ippy,
Fair enough, maybe secular is the wrong word, but I know what I am talking about.
The child must be indoctrinated, like the two times table, the Second Greatest Commandment must be drummed into them, never mind the God stuff, they can make their own minds up about that.
Dear Rhiannon,
Oh I know it is not all doom and gloom, but priorities must shift in schools, the real Important stuff must be taught and teaching any child to love thy neighbour is one of the real important lessons, it must become second nature, that is how we will defeat greed and poverty.
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
What makes you think it isn't taught in schools? The problem is that it isn't taught in enough homes, and it isn't given enough prominence in our media.
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
-
Dear ippy,
Fair enough, maybe secular is the wrong word, but I know what I am talking about.
The child must be indoctrinated, like the two times table, the Second Greatest Commandment must be drummed into them, never mind the God stuff, they can make their own minds up about that.
Dear Rhiannon,
Oh I know it is not all doom and gloom, but priorities must shift in schools, the real Important stuff must be taught and teaching any child to love thy neighbour is one of the real important lessons, it must become second nature, that is how we will defeat greed and poverty.
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
Instilling the get on with your neighbours etc into the minds of our school children, I can't see any problem with that but why is religion necessary to be able to teach such things, my lads at home have had these ideals presented to them and as far as I can tell they have adopted them and certainly without a religious input, we don't do religion here, it's not wanted or needed.
It's to do with privilege no one group should have a privileged position anywhere certainly not within our school system, including secular humanism.
ippy
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
Originally, the Jews were told to love/care for/support those who loved/cared for/supported them. Jesus took this to a different level by telling his followers to love those who lived around them - who might not all love/care for/support them.
-
Floo, so you agree with me, that's good cause I find it strange that Shaker points his puffy finger about injecting children and his beloved Marxist are the biggest abusers. Marxists use dead old Karl as their example of good parenting.
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
Originally, the Jews were told to love/care for/support those who loved/cared for/supported them. Jesus took this to a different level by telling his followers to love those who lived around them - who might not all love/care for/support them.
If by 'love' you mean respect, then I respect those who deserve respect. I try to be a good neighbour, and get on with those in my immediate neighbourhood.
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
-
You claim to have read the Bible.
Last time I checked, Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan was still in it.
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
-
You claim to have read the Bible.
Last time I checked, Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan was still in it.
I have read it, but what I don't understand the word 'love' in respect of one's neighbours. Surely 'love' is reserved for people you like very much indeed, not all and sundry? I understand that one should try to help others along the way, and I try to do that, but I don't 'love' everyone.
-
The idea that a Jew should care for a Samaritan was scandalous to any Pharisee or Sadducee, Floo.
Jesus makes it abundantly clear that our neighnbours aren't just the bloke next door - or the bloke in church - theyre the ones who are supposed to be our enimies as well.
A bit like going to the aid of an injured terrorist.
That's the kind of thing Jesus calls us to do, if we claim to follow Him.
No-one said it was easy.
It isn't meant to be.
-
The idea that a Jew should care for a Samaritan was scandalous to any Pharisee or Sadducee, Floo.
Jesus makes it abundantly clear that our neighnbours aren't just the bloke next door - or the bloke in church - theyre the ones who are supposed to be our enimies as well.
A bit like going to the aid of an injured terrorist.
That's the kind of thing Jesus calls us to do, if we claim to follow Him.
No-one said it was easy.
It isn't meant to be.
And how many Christians 'love' their enemies? Judging by the reaction of some Christians on this forum they don't seem to love or respect many people, enemies or not!
-
That's not for me to judge.
-
That's not for me to judge.
Maybe not, but whilst I don't see it your way, at least you seem to be one of the good guys! :)
-
The 11th Commandment
Hope is NEVER wrong and NEVER contradicts himself and his eperiences are the Holy Writ of the Meads and Persiens carved in stone and immutable in law.
-
The 11th Commandment
Hoper is NEVER wrong and NEVER contradicts himself and his eperiences are the Holy Writ of the Meads and Persiens carved in stone and immutable in law.
Hope did misread a part of a post I made a couple of days ago and admitted as much in a post he made back to me, with an apology.
ippy
-
The 11th Commandment
Hoper is NEVER wrong and NEVER contradicts himself and his eperiences are the Holy Writ of the Meads and Persiens carved in stone and immutable in law.
Hope did misread a part of a post I made a couple of days ago and admitted as much in a post he made back to me, with an apology.
ippy
Red letter day!
That kind of error, yes, he wll admit, but errors of interpretation or of the meaning of the bible - never/
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
You claim to have read the New Testament over and over, and you do not know what one of its basic tenets means. You have the childish, naive, view that any Christian who disagrees with you, or contradicts you, is un-Chtistian. I don't think, in my world, it's possible to dislike someone who is a name on a forum.
-
What does loving one's neighbour actually mean?
You claim to have read the New Testament over and over, and you do not know what one of its basic tenets means. You have the childish, naive, view that any Christian who disagrees with you, or contradicts you, is un-Chtistian. I don't think, in my world, it's possible to dislike someone who is a name on a forum.
Agreed, but you are living, breathing (presumably) proof that it IS possible to dislike their ideas, attitudes and beliefs.
-
... and his eperiences are the Holy Writ of the Meads and Persiens carved in stone and immutable in law.
Meads and Persians? ;) ;)
-
You have the childish, naive, view that any Christian who disagrees with you, or contradicts you, is un-Chtistian.
... which, as we all know, is usually reserved for Christians.
-
You have the childish, naive, view that any Christian who disagrees with you, or contradicts you, is un-Chtistian.
... which, as we all know, is usually reserved for Christians.
I like the humour, Shaker ;)
-
Alas it wasn't, nor was it meant to be, humorous (have you been drinking?), but a sad reflection on the tendency of religionists - monotheists especially - to regard anyone nominally of the same religious persuasion but of a different interpretation as a heretic, or not even a member of the faith at all.
Ad_orientem has built a posting career out of it, for example.
-
... and his eperiences are the Holy Writ of the Meads and Persiens carved in stone and immutable in law.
Meads and Persians? ;) ;)
OH SSSSSS SORRY! Did I make A typo little Mr Bleedin' Perfect!
This should read "Medes and Persians" - "according to the Holy writ of the Medes and Persians" was an expression of my mother's - "according to the Holy Writ of the Medes and Persians with dots on all the 'I's', crosses on the 't's' and tails on the 'q's'."
It means a job cpmpleted to perfection.
-
Alas it wasn't, nor was it meant to be, humorous (have you been drinking?), but a sad reflection on the tendency of religionists - monotheists especially - to regard anyone nominally of the same religious persuasion but of a different interpretation as a heretic, or not even a member of the faith at all.
Ad_orientem has built a posting career out of it, for example.
I wouldn't regard ad_o's approach to be typical of most modern theists, Shaker. Hence my assumption that you were making a joke. If you weren't, I'll beg your forgiveness and say how sad I am that this is your opinion.
Oh, by the way, yes I had been drinking - a glass of Tesco's Bitter Shandy: very refreshing, especially after this morning's interview.
-
I wouldn't regard ad_o's approach to be typical of most modern theists
You'll have to expand on that, mate, because I would reject such a notion, or are you going to go into another one of your "the ancients thought this and that" nonsense without anything to back it up?
He's not modern to start with, come to that none of you theist are.
ippy
-
I wouldn't regard ad_o's approach to be typical of most modern theists
You'll have to expand on that, mate, because I would reject such a notion, or are you going to go into another one of your "the ancients thought this and that" nonsense without anything to back it up?
He's not modern to start with, come to that none of you theist are.
ippy
Read Hope's post wrong. That will teach me to read thngs properly. Therefore I agree with Hope. Sorry Hope.
-
He's not modern to start with, come to that none of you theist are.
ippy
If, as some academics like to say, religion is a late arrival on the hunman calendar and everyone was effectively an atheist before that, then at least we're more modern than you atheists, ippy. Some even like to suggest that: "adhering to evolutionary framework, societies passed through different stages of development and from simplicity to complexity is the nature of social progress."http://www.sociologyguide.com/religion/index.php
If these two things are true, it would suggest that modern atheism is a slipping back into the simple, less-developed ways of thinking!! ;) :-\
-
And your evidence for these assertions is ... ?
-
You peaked in 1970 Shaker. (snork)
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/atheism_peaks_while_spiritual_groups_move_toward_convergence-156528
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/03/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/
-
And your evidence for these assertions is ... ?
I assume this is addressed to me. Evidence is in the site I referenced in my last post.
-
I assume this is addressed to me.
Yes, since it's one of your pet phrases that you like to throw around despite not substantiating any of your own assertions - such as the "good reasons" why "homosexuality was viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" for example.
Evidence is in the site I referenced in my last post.
All I could find was:
If, as some academics like to say ... Some even like to suggest ... If these two things are true, it would suggest
-
It would appear that Hope doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word EVIDENCE!
-
It would appear that Hope doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word EVIDENCE!
Yes, but then there are a lot of words he doesn't know the meaning of.
-
It would appear that Hope doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word EVIDENCE!
-
IRONY ALERT...........
-
It would appear that Hope doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word EVIDENCE!
-
IRONY ALERT...........
Well dear have you any verifiable evidence to support your belief system? No I thought not! ::)
-
Oh, come on you atheist obsessionists! Today's boring comments are just too sad. If you can't think of anything new, just go back to your little upstairs rooms, and continue to pretend people actually give a hoot what you say.
-
It would appear that Hope doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word EVIDENCE!
-
IRONY ALERT...........
Well dear have you any verifiable evidence to support your belief system? No I thought not! ::)
Hold it.
When, on umpteen occasions, I have asked you to produce evidence to back up your opinions, evidence was there none.
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
-
It would appear that Hope doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word EVIDENCE!
-
IRONY ALERT...........
Well dear have you any verifiable evidence to support your belief system? No I thought not! ::)
Hold it.
When, on umpteen occasions, I have asked you to produce evidence to back up your opinions, evidence was there none.
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
I don't have to prove a negative, anymore than I don't have to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. It is for those making less than credible claims for that guy Jesus who have to put up or shut up!
-
I don't have to prove a negative, anymore than I don't have to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. It is for those making less than credible claims for that guy Jesus who have to put up or shut up!
Floo, you do have to 'prove a negative', when the negative is an assertion you have made that states that evidence that has been placed on this forum doesn't exist. Jim has but given some examples.
-
I don't have to prove a negative, anymore than I don't have to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. It is for those making less than credible claims for that guy Jesus who have to put up or shut up!
Floo, you do have to 'prove a negative', when the negative is an assertion you have made that states that evidence that has been placed on this forum doesn't exist. Jim has but given some examples.
WHAT EVIDENCE? None that is verifiable has been placed on this forum because none exists! ::)
-
I don't have to prove a negative, anymore than I don't have to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. It is for those making less than credible claims for that guy Jesus who have to put up or shut up!
Floo, you do have to 'prove a negative', when the negative is an assertion you have made that states that evidence that has been placed on this forum doesn't exist. Jim has but given some examples.
How would one go about proving this negative?
-
Proving the fanciful stuff in the Bible is true isn't going to happen, imo. As I have said a good many times before the Harry Potter books are as credible as the Bible. Although the difference is that the goodies and the baddies are clearly defined in HP, whereas in the not so good book often the goodies are really baddies!
-
Hold it.
When, on umpteen occasions, I have asked you to produce evidence to back up your opinions, evidence was there none.
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
Hold it.
Floo's ability or inability to produce evidence for various of her beliefs has no bearing on Hope's inability to understand what the word "evidence" means.
-
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
Yes, but items such as the Prism of Sennacherib (whose details of the siege in question differ somewhat from the Biblical account) do nothing to substantiate the supernatural claims of the Bible (indeed, the Prism says nothing about the 'Angel' which was supposed to have relieved the siege - what a surprise). Archaelogical evidence is one thing, but supernatural evidence?
-
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
Yes, but items such as the Prism of Sennacherib (whose details of the siege in question differ somewhat from the Biblical account) do nothing to substantiate the supernatural claims of the Bible (indeed, the Prism says nothing about the 'Angel' which was supposed to have relieved the siege - what a surprise). Archaelogical evidence is one thing, but supernatural evidence?
-
Who mentioned Sennacharib?
-
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
Yes, but items such as the Prism of Sennacherib (whose details of the siege in question differ somewhat from the Biblical account) do nothing to substantiate the supernatural claims of the Bible (indeed, the Prism says nothing about the 'Angel' which was supposed to have relieved the siege - what a surprise). Archaelogical evidence is one thing, but supernatural evidence?
-
Who mentioned Sennacharib?
Old Testament? Tie-ins in stone with other civilisations? I was giving a very pertinent example of the kind of thing you appeared to be referring to.
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
-
There are numerous tie ins between the OT and the outside world, verified - literally - in stone, by other civilisations (guess which ones....).
As for the NT, Alan, amongst others, has provided links to sources which are not Christian, but mention Christ.
Yes, but items such as the Prism of Sennacherib (whose details of the siege in question differ somewhat from the Biblical account) do nothing to substantiate the supernatural claims of the Bible (indeed, the Prism says nothing about the 'Angel' which was supposed to have relieved the siege - what a surprise). Archaelogical evidence is one thing, but supernatural evidence?
-
Who mentioned Sennacharib?
"Don't mention the inquisition!! Who said that!!
ippy
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
And still correct B A
ippy
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
And still correct B A
ippy
You, "correct?" Well, pigs may fly.
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
BA, I wouldn't bother wasting any more electronic ink trying to get ippy to write in a sensible manner.
-
C;mon, guys - we'd wonder if there was something wrong if he wrote in any other fashon.
Oh, and, DU;
After the tenth century BC, there's surprisingly loads of tie ins with events in scripture; tie-ins recorded in Egypt, Assyeria, Babylon and Persia.
Sonetimes names are mentioned, at other times places, battles, etc.
Don't forget that, in the scheme of things, historically speaking, Israel and Judah were minor players at best in the history of late bronze age and early Iron age Middle Eastern history. That substantive evidence exists at all is interesting in itself.
The other difficulty is that Israel had an annoying habit of giving Hebrew language names to people and places beyond her borders...and untsngling them is a headache at times.
At least they shared this bad habit of theirs with the Greeks, though, because everyone holds the Hellenistic civilisation up as a paragon (which it wasn't), most of the Greek place and personal names stuck.
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
BA, I wouldn't bother wasting any more electronic ink trying to get ippy to write in a sensible manner.
So the christians have been able to substantiate that they have found this salvation?
When was that Ailen?
-
Dear Jim,
The good lady asks for verifiable evidence, something you can put under a microscope, amputee's limbs growing again, big finger in the sky stuff.
Billions of Christians who have found salvation doesn't count, millions of people who have turned from a life of crime doesn't count, millions who at this very moment are working with our sick, our poor, those in poverty does not count.
Just because it works is not evidence.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation", Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
BA, I wouldn't bother wasting any more electronic ink trying to get ippy to write in a sensible manner.
Sadly, I think that's right!
-
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation",
Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
-
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Do they fail in the way you describe?
-
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation",
Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Can you provide a single piece of verifiable evidence that you are not an idiot? No! That doesn't mean you are an idiot. Some things can be accepted without having to provide "verifiable evidence."
-
YER WOT ?!?!?!?
-
YER WOT ?!?!?!?
Can you provide a single piece of verifiable evidence that you are not an idiot? No! That doesn't mean you are an idiot. Some things can be accepted without having to provide "verifiable evidence."
-
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation",
Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Because there isn't any verifiable facts to support the existence of their deity, only belief and assumptions. As I have said before, one or two Christians on this forum bring their version of Christianity into disrepute by their constant nastiness. They are always dissing others, instead of removing the blinding beams from their own eyes!
-
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation",
Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Because there isn't any verifiable facts to support the existence of their deity, only belief and assumptions. As I have said before, one or two Christians on this forum bring their version of Christianity into disrepute by their constant nastiness. They are always dissing others, instead of removing the blinding beams from their own eyes!
You are so boring! Can't you think of something different to say?
-
Dear Bashers,
Ippy conveniently overlooks the fact that it works, he fails, like so many to look in detail as to why it works.
I was having a very polite conversation with Torridon ( I think ) where he accused Christianity of being a very lucky religion, I politely pointed out that it was, still is a religion that can speak to all, it is more than just luck ( luck or divine intervention ) more about the message, the life and teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Or maybe he is right, Christianity is a very, very, very lucky religion.
Gonnagle.
PS: Other religions are available.
-
Dear Bashers,
Ippy conveniently overlooks the fact that it works, he fails, like so many to look in detail as to why it works.
I was having a very polite conversation with Torridon ( I think ) where he accused Christianity of being a very lucky religion, I politely pointed out that it was, still is a religion that can speak to all, it is more than just luck ( luck or divine intervention ) more about the message, the life and teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Or maybe he is right, Christianity is a very, very, very lucky religion.
Gonnagle.
PS: Other religions are available.
I think people like Ippy are missing something in their lives and resent those who have a belief, something they wish they had. So they hit out at it, and that is very sad. It seems to be any excuse, whether it be calling it lucky, or their usual "fairies, magic" stuff.
-
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation",
Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Because there isn't any verifiable facts to support the existence of their deity, only belief and assumptions. As I have said before, one or two Christians on this forum bring their version of Christianity into disrepute by their constant nastiness. They are always dissing others, instead of removing the blinding beams from their own eyes!
But philosophies aren't supported by verifiable facts. No, not even the notion that the only truths are verifiable facts. Get that and you may be lifted out of what many perceive as a constant nastiness.
-
Gonners, "Billions of Christians who have found salvation",
Billions of Christians have convinced themselves in their imaginations that they have found some kind of salvation, they are all unable to substantiate that they have.
ippy
Your constant and obsessive belittling of Christians is offensive and immature, in the extreme.
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Because there isn't any verifiable facts to support the existence of their deity, only belief and assumptions. As I have said before, one or two Christians on this forum bring their version of Christianity into disrepute by their constant nastiness. They are always dissing others, instead of removing the blinding beams from their own eyes!
But philosophies aren't supported by verifiable facts. No, not even the notion that the only truths are verifiable facts. Get that and you may be lifted out of what many perceive as a constant nastiness.
Very true, Vlad, many truths we may never be able to verify as facts ... but once we credit God with anything we don't understand, we are as good as giving up trying to find the truth of it.
This is the problem, the Church tried to stifle all those who didn't just accept Goddidit as an answer. Scientific discovery was frowned upon as heresy and if it hadn't been for those who rebelled against the teachings of the church, we would still be in the Dark Ages and you wouldn't be on the Internet now criticising scientists and their methods.
-
Dear jj,
What you say is true, a truth, but the Church has grown and for me, thankfully, it remains a voice to ask science, are you sure, have you factored in all the implications.
After all, scientists are human, and subject to all our human failings.
Gonnagle.
-
This is the problem, the Church tried to stifle all those who didn't just accept Goddidit as an answer. Scientific discovery was frowned upon as heresy and if it hadn't been for those who rebelled against the teachings of the church, we would still be in the Dark Ages and you wouldn't be on the Internet now criticising scientists and their methods.
Ah, jj, you have suddenly switched the focus from 'Christianity' to 'the Church'. Is there a reason for this? At the same time, how many of the rebelling scientists you refer to remained Christians, whether they were excommunicated or not?
-
This is the problem, the Church tried to stifle all those who didn't just accept Goddidit as an answer. Scientific discovery was frowned upon as heresy and if it hadn't been for those who rebelled against the teachings of the church, we would still be in the Dark Ages and you wouldn't be on the Internet now criticising scientists and their methods.
Ah, jj, you have suddenly switched the focus from 'Christianity' to 'the Church'. Is there a reason for this? At the same time, how many of the rebelling scientists you refer to remained Christians, whether they were excommunicated or not?
Yes, they mostly remained Christians, guess why! They valued their liberty and life!
As a historian, Hope, I think you must have studied with your magic Christian glasses on.
-
Dear jj,
What you say is true, a truth, but the Church has grown and for me, thankfully, it remains a voice to ask science, are you sure, have you factored in all the implications.
After all, scientists are human, and subject to all our human failings.
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonners, okay I hope?
I agree the Christian Church has changed but many on this forum seem to still be back in the old days of being scared of science.
Yes, we should always ask the implications of the scientists' discoveries but we have to ask the politicians not the scientists, it's they who put the discoveries to good or bad use.
-
Dear jj,
I am brand new old chap, I hope you and yours are good.
What you say is true, our politicians are having a rough time at the moment, some where it is richly deserved.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bashers,
Ippy conveniently overlooks the fact that it works, he fails, like so many to look in detail as to why it works.
I was having a very polite conversation with Torridon ( I think ) where he accused Christianity of being a very lucky religion, I politely pointed out that it was, still is a religion that can speak to all, it is more than just luck ( luck or divine intervention ) more about the message, the life and teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Or maybe he is right, Christianity is a very, very, very lucky religion.
Gonnagle.
PS: Other religions are available.
Homeopathy works in well known perimeters, it's a kind of self deception that needs a certain circumstances to throw the switch, religion doesn't have anywhere as much effect so really it appears that homeopathy is a more effective unexplained prescriptive than another self deceptive, unexplained prescriptive religion.
As for being able to speak for all, so can a lot of comedians.
Have a look at the latest figures I've posted on the forum this morning, it looks like it's luck is running out fast here in the UK.
ippy
-
Why is it then that all those with, supposedly, the greatest knowledge and authority about god fail totally to present a single verifiable fact about this God they believe in?
Do they fail in the way you describe?
Yes.
ippy
-
I agree the Christian Church has changed but many on this forum seem to still be back in the old days of being scared of science.
jj, the only people I can think of who may have indicated a fear of science are Sass,
and
Sass, and possibly
Sass.
Oh, have I mentioned Sass?
One name, doesn't really seem to match your assertion that "many on this forum seem to still be back in the old days of being scared of science".
-
Yes, they mostly remained Christians, guess why! They valued their liberty and life!
Do you have any evidence for this assumption? Remember that, for many, it was the science bit that put rthem in most jeopardy.
As a historian, Hope, I think you must have studied with your magic Christian glasses on.
No, just studied the link between history and science with an open mind.
-
Do they fail in the way you describe?
Yes.
ippy
OK, then explain how they fail? Try not to use stats that don't actually say what you want them to.
-
Do they fail in the way you describe?
Yes.
ippy
OK, then explain how they fail? Try not to use stats that don't actually say what you want them to.
Easy, an exponential falling of numbers, year on year.
ippy
-
Yes, they mostly remained Christians, guess why! They valued their liberty and life!
Do you have any evidence for this assumption? Remember that, for many, it was the science bit that put rthem in most jeopardy.
As a historian, Hope, I think you must have studied with your magic Christian glasses on.
No, just studied the link between history and science with an open mind.
"Remember that, for many, it was the science bit that put them in most jeopardy."
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
-
Oh, and, DU;
After the tenth century BC, there's surprisingly loads of tie ins with events in scripture; tie-ins recorded in Egypt, Assyeria, Babylon and Persia.
Sonetimes names are mentioned, at other times places, battles, etc.
Don't forget that, in the scheme of things, historically speaking, Israel and Judah were minor players at best in the history of late bronze age and early Iron age Middle Eastern history. That substantive evidence exists at all is interesting in itself.
The other difficulty is that Israel had an annoying habit of giving Hebrew language names to people and places beyond her borders...and untsngling them is a headache at times.
At least they shared this bad habit of theirs with the Greeks, though, because everyone holds the Hellenistic civilisation up as a paragon (which it wasn't), most of the Greek place and personal names stuck.
Of course - I don't deny this kind of corroborative evidence, though one would really expect more from the glorious descriptions of Solomon's Temple etc in the OT, even if Israel and Judah were 'minor players' on the scene. I understand that the supposed site of Solomon's Temple has been "otherwise occupied" for a very long time. It would be interesting to see what might be revealed if ever the site once again became accessible. However, some sites which might have proved of distinctive historical interest have turned out to be absolute duds - such as Jericho. No evidence of "tumbled walls" as far as I know.
Which brings me back to my original point about the Sennacherib Prism. There may indeed be many historical and archaeological artifacts around which confirm the events in the OT in a general way, but nothing that would suggest the visitation of angels or the 'Hand of God'.
-
Actually, now you come to mention it, DU, the Solomonic Temple as described in Scripture bears a very striking resemblence to Temples in Egypt (Karnak, Luxor, Abydos and Tanis, though on a much smaller scale.
All Egyptian temples were roofed (except those at Amarna), and every wall, pillar and ceiling was decorated in a riot of colour, with wooden roofing, wooden doors gilded and bronzed, gilded statuary, etc.
The main differences with the Solomonic Temple were the obvious lack of a statue in the 'holy of holies', substitution of churubim and seraphim images for Egyptian deities, and the greater use of wood - a precious commodity in the Nile Valley.
Compare the floor plan of Solomon's Temple and that of the Temple of Amun-Ra in Tanis, and the two are virtually identical (though Solomon's Temple is about a third the size).
Curios that the Tanis Temple was originally constructed at Pi-Ramesse in the Delta (remember Exodus and 'Ramses'?)
before Psusennes I removed the entire city to Tanis after the branch of the Nile on which Pi-Ramesse was situated silted up.
The Temple was rebuilt block by block as it was originslly constructed.
This argues that at least some Hebrews were employed either in designing or constructing the Temple at Pi-Ramesse...strange indeed, as it was normally very highly unlikely that any non-Egyptian (or even Egyptian 'commoner', come to that) would ever be allowed into an Egyptian Temple at any time.
-
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
Do you find anything within Jesus' teaching that suggests that investigation and exploration of any sort ought to be outlawed?
It is very easy to blame the Church - a human institution - but less so Jesus and his teachings which are, of course, the foundation of the faith.
-
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
Do you find anything within Jesus' teaching that suggests that investigation and exploration of any sort ought to be outlawed?
It is very easy to blame the Church - a human institution - but less so Jesus and his teachings which are, of course, the foundation of the faith.
No, I do not find anything in JCs alleged teachings to suggest he was against it, although there is nothing there to suggest he encouraged it, but that isn't the point. As a teacher. he sounds as if he was against the established religion and it's way of thinking - as I am today! He could see it for what it was and still is, a power base in which its leaders did okay while its followers did as they were told - mainly by the carrot and stick method.
While the leaders lived a life of luxury in palaces (such as Westminster Palace today) the peasants lived in hovels, so anyone who looked for change were held down. This meant that any would-be scientists who suggested there were other explanations than simply Goddidit were a threat to their power and influence.
If Christians simply held JC's views and standards, criticising the Pope, bishops, Archbishops etc and stopped telling us he was something more than the Arthur Scargil of the 1stC, I would have no qualms with you.
-
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
Do you find anything within Jesus' teaching that suggests that investigation and exploration of any sort ought to be outlawed?
It is very easy to blame the Church - a human institution - but less so Jesus and his teachings which are, of course, the foundation of the faith.
No, I do not find anything in JCs alleged teachings to suggest he was against it, although there is nothing there to suggest he encouraged it, but that isn't the point. As a teacher. he sounds as if he was against the established religion and it's way of thinking - as I am today! He could see it for what it was and still is, a power base in which its leaders did okay while its followers did as they were told - mainly by the carrot and stick method.
While the leaders lived a life of luxury in palaces (such as Westminster Palace today) the peasants lived in hovels, so anyone who looked for change were held down. This meant that any would-be scientists who suggested there were other explanations than simply Goddidit were a threat to their power and influence.
If Christians simply held JC's views and standards, criticising the Pope, bishops, Archbishops etc and stopped telling us he was something more than the Arthur Scargil of the 1stC, I would have no qualms with you.
What:
Views such as "I am the Way, the truth and the Life: no mane can come to the Father, but through Me"?
or
"Apart from Ne, you can do nothing."
Or
"I have come that you may have life; life in all its' fulness".
or
"Come to Me, all you who are heavy laden.....take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, ........and you will find rest for your soul."
Teaching like that, you mean?
-
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
Do you find anything within Jesus' teaching that suggests that investigation and exploration of any sort ought to be outlawed?
It is very easy to blame the Church - a human institution - but less so Jesus and his teachings which are, of course, the foundation of the faith.
No, I do not find anything in JCs alleged teachings to suggest he was against it, although there is nothing there to suggest he encouraged it, but that isn't the point. As a teacher. he sounds as if he was against the established religion and it's way of thinking - as I am today! He could see it for what it was and still is, a power base in which its leaders did okay while its followers did as they were told - mainly by the carrot and stick method.
While the leaders lived a life of luxury in palaces (such as Westminster Palace today) the peasants lived in hovels, so anyone who looked for change were held down. This meant that any would-be scientists who suggested there were other explanations than simply Goddidit were a threat to their power and influence.
If Christians simply held JC's views and standards, criticising the Pope, bishops, Archbishops etc and stopped telling us he was something more than the Arthur Scargil of the 1stC, I would have no qualms with you.
What:
Views such as "I am the Way, the truth and the Life: no mane can come to the Father, but through Me"?
or
"Apart from Ne, you can do nothing."
Or
"I have come that you may have life; life in all its' fulness".
or
"Come to Me, all you who are heavy laden.....take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, ........and you will find rest for your soul."
Teaching like that, you mean?
Have you ever thought of the possibility that he might have been using the phrase 'Father' as you do when you say the Lord's Prayer, Anchorman? You don't mean God is your real dad but a father figure that you imagine to be listening to you.
But even if he was telling his followers that he was actually God in human form, couldn't that have been to give his teachings more credence - people in those days thought Gods were those amazing beings who sent comets across the sky and blew up mountains when they were angry, so were pretty gullible to anyone who told them they were God?
When I say his teachings, I mean the basic "Help others and do as you would want to be done by" type messages.
-
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
Do you find anything within Jesus' teaching that suggests that investigation and exploration of any sort ought to be outlawed?
It is very easy to blame the Church - a human institution - but less so Jesus and his teachings which are, of course, the foundation of the faith.
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
-
Of course it did, that's what I'm saying! The Church threatened anyone who dared to question Goddidit!
Do you find anything within Jesus' teaching that suggests that investigation and exploration of any sort ought to be outlawed?
It is very easy to blame the Church - a human institution - but less so Jesus and his teachings which are, of course, the foundation of the faith.
No, I do not find anything in JCs alleged teachings to suggest he was against it, although there is nothing there to suggest he encouraged it, but that isn't the point. As a teacher. he sounds as if he was against the established religion and it's way of thinking - as I am today! He could see it for what it was and still is, a power base in which its leaders did okay while its followers did as they were told - mainly by the carrot and stick method.
While the leaders lived a life of luxury in palaces (such as Westminster Palace today) the peasants lived in hovels, so anyone who looked for change were held down. This meant that any would-be scientists who suggested there were other explanations than simply Goddidit were a threat to their power and influence.
If Christians simply held JC's views and standards, criticising the Pope, bishops, Archbishops etc and stopped telling us he was something more than the Arthur Scargil of the 1stC, I would have no qualms with you.
What:
Views such as "I am the Way, the truth and the Life: no mane can come to the Father, but through Me"?
or
"Apart from Ne, you can do nothing."
Or
"I have come that you may have life; life in all its' fulness".
or
"Come to Me, all you who are heavy laden.....take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, ........and you will find rest for your soul."
Teaching like that, you mean?
Have you ever thought of the possibility that he might have been using the phrase 'Father' as you do when you say the Lord's Prayer, Anchorman? You don't mean God is your real dad but a father figure that you imagine to be listening to you.
-
Yes. But there are enough proofs in the synoptic, as well as Johanine, Gospels, that Jesus was self-identifying Himself with God. _
But even if he was telling his followers that he was actually God in human form, couldn't that have been to give his teachings more credence - people in those days thought Gods were those amazing beings who sent comets across the sky and blew up mountains when they were angry, so were pretty gullible to anyone who told them they were God?
-
No. If He was telling His followers that He was (and is) God in human form, He knew exactly what kind of hornets' nest that would provoke amongst those who thought they knew the Torah.
-
When I say his teachings, I mean the basic "Help others and do as you would want to be done by" type messages.
-
Problem there is that one can't separate what Jesus both taught and did - npot even in the Synoptics.
-
Dear jj,
When I say his teachings, I mean the basic "Help others and do as you would want to be done by" type messages.
Second Commandment.
Matthew 22:36-40
Gonnagle.
-
Dear jj,
When I say his teachings, I mean the basic "Help others and do as you would want to be done by" type messages.
Second Commandment.
Matthew 22:36-40
Gonnagle.
Jesus said: "You are my friends if you follow my commandment. It is my commandment that you love one another." That is sublime
-
Floo you'll never get through to this lot they are as described by our reverend father, R D the great, they hate him because he has hit the nail on the head they are in fact deluded, the psychologists refer to the religionists particular blend of delusion as cognitive dissonance.
It is very similar to the way smokers justify/make excuses to themselves for continuing with habit in spite of the fact that it's in fact largely suicidal.
OK being a religionist of whatever colour although it's not so suicidal as smoking tobacco it's plainly irrational due to the total lack of evidence for any of the magical, mysterious or supernatural aspects of these overall strange beliefs.
But in spite of the lack of evidence they will still go into making irrational illogical excuses to themselves backed up by the get out of jail free excuses written into their manuals put there to counter any rational case put before the devotees of these manuals.
The irrational excuses for continuing to smoke are so similar to the religionist's rejection of even the lightest of critique, no matter how rational these critiques might be they continue to fly in the face of logic with all sorts of excuses for hanging on to their unsupported beliefs, come what may.
R D certainly said it like it is.
Ippy
-
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
That's been tried before, Floo. It didn't float for very long.
-
Floo you'll never get through to this lot they are as described by our reverend father, R D the great, they hate him because he has hit the nail on the head they are in fact deluded, the psychologists refer to the religionists particular blend of delusion as cognitive dissonance.
Not sure that the term 'cognitive dissonance' has ever been applied to religious belief, ippy. Would you have a reference from a reputable source - not just from your own writings?
-
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
That's been tried before, Floo. It didn't float for very long.
How do I verify that Jesus actually spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount?
-
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
That's been tried before, Floo. It didn't float for very long.
Meaning?
-
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
That's been tried before, Floo. It didn't float for very long.
Meaning?
Meaning Hope thinks he has some watertight evidence that Jesus' words are accurately recorded in the NT. Unfortunately, he and other have posted it a billion times before so he will not be telling us what it is.
-
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
That's been tried before, Floo. It didn't float for very long.
How do I verify that Jesus actually spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount?
You can't, you can only weigh everything up and decide if the source is worthy of your trust.
-
Floo you'll never get through to this lot they are as described by our reverend father, R D the great, they hate him because he has hit the nail on the head they are in fact deluded, the psychologists refer to the religionists particular blend of delusion as cognitive dissonance.
Not sure that the term 'cognitive dissonance' has ever been applied to religious belief, ippy. Would you have a reference from a reputable source - not just from your own writings?
Well yes in a way I was talking to a close relative of mine that's a Dr of psychology, about this subject just a couple of weeks ago, it's always interesting having a chat with her because my wife was there with me and it's helpful because she started with child psychology some time ago and went on to get her A levels in the subject so where I fall short both of them are able to change some of the more complicated stuff into everyday English so that even people like me can understand.
Whether you believe me that's up to you, but that's about it, I'm sure there'll be something about cognitive dissonance is on Wikki somewhere.
ippy
-
Floo you'll never get through to this lot they are as described by our reverend father, R D the great, they hate him because he has hit the nail on the head they are in fact deluded, the psychologists refer to the religionists particular blend of delusion as cognitive dissonance.
Not sure that the term 'cognitive dissonance' has ever been applied to religious belief, ippy. Would you have a reference from a reputable source - not just from your own writings?
Well yes in a way I was talking to a close relative of mine that's a Dr of psychology, about this subject just a couple of weeks ago, it's always interesting having a chat with her because my wife was there with me and it's helpful because she started with child psychology some time ago and went on to get her A levels in the subject so where I fall short both of them are able to change some of the more complicated stuff into everyday English so that even people like me can understand.
Whether you believe me that's up to you, but that's about it, I'm sure there'll be something about cognitive dissonance is on Wikki somewhere.
ippy
Keep digging!!
-
Well yes in a way I was talking to a close relative of mine that's a Dr of psychology,...
and we all know that hearsay isn't evidence.
Whether you believe me that's up to you, but that's about it, I'm sure there'll be something about cognitive dissonance is on Wikki somewhere.
Cognitive dissonance is all about " ... the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
-
Well yes in a way I was talking to a close relative of mine that's a Dr of psychology,...
and we all know that hearsay isn't evidence.
Whether you believe me that's up to you, but that's about it, I'm sure there'll be something about cognitive dissonance is on Wikki somewhere.
Cognitive dissonance is all about " ... the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
There you are Hope you've just demonstrated it in this post of yours, thanks.
ippy
-
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.
-
What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.
That's been tried before, Floo. It didn't float for very long.
According to whom? Are you referring to just this forum? As far as I'm aware this kind of question has been at the centre of critical discussion in Christianity for over 200 years, beginning with such figures as Samuel Reimarus and David Friedrich Strauss. There's no sign of any diminution in scholarly debate as far as I can see, or as far as anyone with enquiring minds can see (to quote your own words in another thread back at you.)
-
Cognitive dissonance is all about " ... the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
Cognitive dissonance is perhaps most easily perceived among fundamentalists (in the religious camp) - hence the frantic appeals to 'science' to justify their literal approach to Genesis etc. It can of course exist in a host of other fields of human experience, as you say, but its appearance in religious belief is particularly obvious. In fact, it was in the context of religious discussion that I first came across the term, in the long testimony of a former evangelical minister who had lost his faith, and went through a heart-searching process of deconstruction of his former belief-system, and all the trauma associated with the realisation that, as regards religion's supernatural claims, he'd been on a wild-goose chase.
-
Looks like you've got a forte for speaking languages Hope.
ippy
-
According to whom? Are you referring to just this forum? As far as I'm aware this kind of question has been at the centre of critical discussion in Christianity for over 200 years, beginning with such figures as Samuel Reimarus and David Friedrich Strauss. There's no sign of any diminution in scholarly debate as far as I can see, or as far as anyone with enquiring minds can see (to quote your own words in another thread back at you.)
I understood that it had been questioned by folk long before Reimarus and Strauss, perhapos as far back as the 1st century AD. I appreciate that they seem to have been the ones who managed to gather all the loose ends that existed till then, but there doesn't seem to have been a great deal of success in supporting the claim.
At the same time, the idea has been floated here on more than one occasion, and iirc, Jim nailed at least one such argument to the floor within posts of the thread being started.
-
According to whom? Are you referring to just this forum? As far as I'm aware this kind of question has been at the centre of critical discussion in Christianity for over 200 years, beginning with such figures as Samuel Reimarus and David Friedrich Strauss. There's no sign of any diminution in scholarly debate as far as I can see, or as far as anyone with enquiring minds can see (to quote your own words in another thread back at you.)
I understood that it had been questioned by folk long before Reimarus and Strauss, perhapos as far back as the 1st century AD. I appreciate that they seem to have been the ones who managed to gather all the loose ends that existed till then, but there doesn't seem to have been a great deal of success in supporting the claim.
At the same time, the idea has been floated here on more than one occasion, and iirc, Jim nailed at least one such argument to the floor within posts of the thread being started.
Well, if you think that everything that Jesus is supposed to have said in the gospels is exactly what he did say, and there are valid reasons for believing this is so, I'd like you to "show your working" that brought you to this conclusion. Very few Christian scholars, apart from evangelical ones, think that Jesus' words in John's gospel are straight reportage.
-
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.
Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.
-
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.
Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.
The time in which the Jesus story is set is often referred to as 'antiquity', so 'ancient' seems a reasonable term to use.
As for impossible: that seems accurate as opposed to fallacious (ask any undertaker about changes to dead bodies over 2/3 days). Interesting that you think that perhaps one day science will have developed so as to do the equivalent of resurrection - for now though, and for the middle-east of antiquity, resurrection of the 2/3 days dead is impossible and, as such, the claims in relation to Jesus can just be dismissed.
-
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.
Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.
The time in which the Jesus story is set is often referred to as 'antiquity', so 'ancient' seems a reasonable term to use.
As for impossible: that seems accurate as opposed to fallacious (ask any undertaker about changes to dead bodies over 2/3 days). Interesting that you think that perhaps one day science will have developed so as to do the equivalent of resurrection - for now though, and for the middle-east of antiquity, resurrection of the 2/3 days dead is impossible and, as such, the claims in relation to Jesus can just be dismissed.
Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God?
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
-
Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God.
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
Which is actually contradictory to your privileging of experience because of the problem of hard solipsism - sorry but you aren't even in a position to resort to argumentum ad populum here.
-
Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God.
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
Which is actually contradictory to your privileging of experience because of the problem of hard solipsism - sorry but you aren't even in a position to resort to argumentum ad populum here.
I'm not sure I did, I think that's in your head.
-
As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism. In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.
So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.
Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.
The time in which the Jesus story is set is often referred to as 'antiquity', so 'ancient' seems a reasonable term to use.
As for impossible: that seems accurate as opposed to fallacious (ask any undertaker about changes to dead bodies over 2/3 days). Interesting that you think that perhaps one day science will have developed so as to do the equivalent of resurrection - for now though, and for the middle-east of antiquity, resurrection of the 2/3 days dead is impossible and, as such, the claims in relation to Jesus can just be dismissed.
I wouldn't use the world impossible in this context and neither can any materialist since ''life'' is merely the arrangement of the media.
What you meant to say is that it was extremely improbable. We can agree on that.
You also said you don't think it happened, that is fair enough. What did?
You also implied that you couldn't believe it, why not?
-
I'm not sure I did, I think that's in your head.
Sorry, I've experienced you telling me. It's true, or rather it is given your 'methodology'.
-
I wouldn't use the world impossible in this context and neither can any materialist since ''life'' is merely the arrangement of the media.
What you meant to say is that it was extremely improbable. We can agree on that.
You also said you don't think it happened, that is fair enough. What did?
You also implied that you couldn't believe it, why not?
Oh at last, Vlad's discivered the problem of induction - it's like he just said 'dada'.
-
Well, if you think that everything that Jesus is supposed to have said in the gospels is exactly what he did say, and there are valid reasons for believing this is so, I'd like you to "show your working" that brought you to this conclusion. Very few Christian scholars, apart from evangelical ones, think that Jesus' words in John's gospel are straight reportage.
I notice that you choose the Gospel that is furthest from the life and time of Jesus (with a generally accepted authorship date of between 80 and 100). How about the earlier Gospels?
Whilst I wouldn't suggest that what is written in the Gospels is necessarily word for word what Jesus said, it seems likely that he repeated a lot of his teachings; this would mean that whilst the actual recorded words may not be precise, the meanings behind them are. At the same time, it should be remembered that in an age of greater reliance on oral commun ication than now, repetition would help individuals and communities to memorise the underlying truths if not the exact words.
-
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.
-
Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God?
Invent gods and literally anything goes, Vlad; but as Hope reminds us on a regular basis, "If God, therefore magic" is the death of any rational view of the world.
-
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.
I don't think you have established that your dismissal doesn't boil down to anything more than your belief in philosophical naturalism since you misunderstand the history, are historically revisionist and your use of the word impossible in this context. Your analysis is also riddled with the genetic fallacy.
Given all of that there is one word left that describes your analysis............Dollop.
-
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.
I don't think you have established that your dismissal doesn't boil down to anything more than your belief in philosophical naturalism since you misunderstand the history, are historically revisionist and your use of the word impossible in this context. Your analysis is also riddled with the genetic fallacy.
Given all of that there is one word left that describes your analysis............Dollop.
It is indeed a splendid word, Vlad: here is another 'induction', now toddle off to your nearest undertaker and let us know how many resurrections you encounter over, say, the next 6 months.
Alternatively, you could accept that 2/3 dead corpses really do stay dead (and will do no matter how long you haunt the undertaker) and avoid wasting your time on silly notions.
-
Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God?
Invent gods and literally anything goes, Vlad; but as Hope reminds us on a regular basis, "If God, therefore magic" is the death of any rational view of the world.
Not really since a rational view of the world presumably includes recognition that a resurrection is not something science would term as impossible. That it was not observed is uncertain.
Given that it is undeniable that the resurrection has also been an embarrassment since the start it is a wonder it hasn't been supressed by the church or at least the church as portrayed by antitheists.
If God, therefore magic I don't see how it is any more dangerous to a rational view of the world than the universe either being an uncaused effect or an uncaused cause.
Perhaps you'd like to justify your thesis.
-
So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.
Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.
I don't think you have established that your dismissal doesn't boil down to anything more than your belief in philosophical naturalism since you misunderstand the history, are historically revisionist and your use of the word impossible in this context. Your analysis is also riddled with the genetic fallacy.
Given all of that there is one word left that describes your analysis............Dollop.
It is indeed a splendid word, Vlad: here is another 'induction', now toddle off to your nearest undertaker and let us know how many resurrections you encounter over, say, the next 6 months.
Alternatively, you could accept that 2/3 dead corpses really do stay dead (and will do no matter how long you haunt the undertaker) and avoid wasting your time on silly notions.
I don't expect to see any resurrections ever and there may never be any again although if it's right that life is merely due to the configuration of matter a resurrection strikes me as a technological possibility. I may not though prepared to accept that it is impossible since square circles are the sort of things which are impossible and this isn't in that category.
I have no reason to revise the accidental historical points flagged up in the epistles and I have experienced Christ spiritually so no I don't think you can absolutely trust that dead men never get up. I can tell that your argument boils down to a philosophically naturalist given the historical, categorical, scientific misunderstandings your analysis is prone to.
I'm also waiting for a proton to decay.
-
If God, therefore magic I don't see how it is any more dangerous to a rational view of the world than the universe either being an uncaused effect or an uncaused cause.
Perhaps you'd like to justify your thesis.
The short version runs approximately as follows:
My methodology for understanding the world and sorting the true from the false has a number of factors built into it as factory standard which make it self-correcting. We've never come up with anything even remotely as consistently accurate and successful at delivering reliable results literally every single day.
You have nothing. We know this because you keep being asked to show your methodology and you have no answer - just 'philosophical materialism' stuck on auto-repeat.
There's a longer version that I'd be glad to go into after supper if I have the time.
-
I don't expect to see any resurrections ever and there may never be any again although if it's right that life is merely due to the configuration of matter a resurrection strikes me as a technological possibility.
In that case expect to be head-hunted by any number of biology departments: provide the method and you'll make a killing.
I may not though prepared to accept that it is impossible since square circles are the sort of things which are impossible and this isn't in that category.
I suspect that square circles and the resurrection of 2/3 day dead bodies in antiquity are similar - in that both are impossibilities.
I have no reason to revise the accidental historical points flagged up in the epistles and I have experienced Christ spiritually so no I don't think you can absolutely trust that dead men never get up.
Then you'd be dead wrong.
I can tell that your argument boils down to a philosophically naturalist given the historical, categorical, scientific misunderstandings your analysis is prone to.
Of course you do - it is your dreary mantra.
I'm also waiting for a proton to decay.
Super - is that what you are having for dinner this evening?
-
Given that it is undeniable that the resurrection has also been an embarrassment since the start it is a wonder it hasn't been supressed by the church or at least the church as portrayed by antitheists.
Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment? Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.
-
If God, therefore magic I don't see how it is any more dangerous to a rational view of the world than the universe either being an uncaused effect or an uncaused cause.
Perhaps you'd like to justify your thesis.
The short version runs approximately as follows:
My methodology for understanding the world and sorting the true from the false has a number of factors built into it as factory standard which make it self-correcting. We've never come up with anything even remotely as consistently accurate and successful at delivering reliable results literally every single day.
I have exactly what you have Shaker, but I wouldn't say that that was the be all and end all.
Science doesn't rule that resurrection is impossible i'm afraid. Stop trying to own it and confuse it with philosophical naturalism.
That a resurrection or two threaten to overturn science, reason and logic is ''slippery slope'' fallacy.
-
Given that it is undeniable that the resurrection has also been an embarrassment since the start it is a wonder it hasn't been supressed by the church or at least the church as portrayed by antitheists.
Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment? Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.
That would only be a problem for a rabbinical Judaist surely, I don't think there were many of them though. It would be an embarrassment since dead men don't get up.
-
I don't expect to see any resurrections ever and there may never be any again although if it's right that life is merely due to the configuration of matter a resurrection strikes me as a technological possibility.
In that case expect to be head-hunted by any number of biology departments: provide the method and you'll make a killing.
I may not though prepared to accept that it is impossible since square circles are the sort of things which are impossible and this isn't in that category.
I suspect that square circles and the resurrection of 2/3 day dead bodies in antiquity are similar - in that both are impossibilities.
http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-3
-
Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment? Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.
Yet, that possible motive would lie with those Jews who were responsible for his death - the Jewish leaders. It wouldn't have been a motive for the disciples - especially as they had scattered to the four winds by the time he was crucified. It was only after a woman had seen the risen Christ that they understood the need to get together again.
-
http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-3
And ... ?
-
http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-3
And ... ?
http://biologos.org/blog/motivated-belief-john-polkinghorne-on-the-resurrection-part-4
-
And ... ?
-
Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment? Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.
Yet, that possible motive would lie with those Jews who were responsible for his death - the Jewish leaders.
Why would the people who wanted him dead spread a rumour that he was alive again?
It wouldn't have been a motive for the disciples
Of course it would.
especially as they had scattered to the four winds by the time he was crucified. It was only after a woman had seen the risen Christ that they understood the need to get together again.
According to the resurrection story they or someone after them invented.
-
Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment? Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.
Yet, that possible motive would lie with those Jews who were responsible for his death - the Jewish leaders.
Why would the people who wanted him dead spread a rumour that he was alive again?
It wouldn't have been a motive for the disciples
Of course it would.
especially as they had scattered to the four winds by the time he was crucified. It was only after a woman had seen the risen Christ that they understood the need to get together again.
According to the resurrection story they or someone after them invented.
And why do you say it was invented Jeremy?
-
I have exactly what you have Shaker, but I wouldn't say that that was the be all and end all.
Science doesn't rule that resurrection is impossible i'm afraid. Stop trying to own it and confuse it with philosophical naturalism.
That a resurrection or two threaten to overturn science, reason and logic is ''slippery slope'' fallacy.
Gordon's #326 has already provided the appropriate and accurate rejoinder to this.
-
I have exactly what you have Shaker, but I wouldn't say that that was the be all and end all.
Science doesn't rule that resurrection is impossible i'm afraid. Stop trying to own it and confuse it with philosophical naturalism.
That a resurrection or two threaten to overturn science, reason and logic is ''slippery slope'' fallacy.
Gordon's #326 has already provided the appropriate and accurate rejoinder to this.
I;m abit suspicious at his accuracy since he uses the big scraggy brush of PN when what's required is the fine brush of actual consideration...
It's way past your cocoa time F***off,get a goodnights sleep and come back with better stuff than you've been offering tonight....are you actually awake when you type this stuff or in the hypnopompic state?
-
::)
I think you should seek some sort of professional help. While it has always been bad and a long-standing nuisance, at the moment you seem physically incapable of posting anything without throwing philosophical naturalism pointlessly into the mix. If anybody needs a good night's sleep, of the two of us I rather think that you stand in far greater need of one than I do. Who knows: it may, just may get it out of your system. I'm not tremendously hopeful but you never know - we'll see how many times you mention it for absolutely no good reason tomorrow.
In the meantime I suppose Bashers will carry on calling atheists "obsessive" while completely ignoring your borderline pathological monomania with PN, rank, festering hypocrite that he is on this as he is with swearing.
-
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.
That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
You really do not know your bible do you? I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.
-
You can't understand the scriptures properly apart from the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. You should try it. The reason you don't accept Blessed Mary's perpetual virginity is because you have an heretical view of the Incarnation.
-
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.
That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
You really do not know your bible do you? I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.
I wouldn't ask YOUR god the time of day and, if I did, I would then check my watch and believe that rather than him!
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass, the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!
You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.
-
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,
Was it really, Matt? Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
... the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!
Yes, I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it. Perhaps you can enlighten the board.
You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill. Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.
-
Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
Which only goes to show just how little good Christianty has achieved in 2,000 years - S F A! (and no, I do not mean Sweet fanny Adams!)
I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it. Perhaps you can enlighten the board.
Hypocricy - Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.
Vindictiveness - PObey me and my rules or you will roast in Hell forever.
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill. Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.
Every single Pagan deity, female and male, gave humanity freewill, thousands of years before your Johnny-come-lately.
Get your rose-coloured glasses and your blinkers off, your head out of the clouds and your feet back on the ground.
-
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,
Was it really, Matt? Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
What is different nowadays is our scientific knowledge. and also our ability to think independently of religion or culture. Both of them are slowly releasing us from the credulousness of our forbears.
-
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,
Was it really, Matt? Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
What is different nowadays is our scientific knowledge. and also our ability to think independently of religion or culture. Both of them are slowly releasing us from the credulousness of our forbears.
Sadly though that is going to be a VERY slow process!
-
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,
Was it really, Matt? Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
What is different nowadays is our scientific knowledge. and also our ability to think independently of religion or culture. Both of them are slowly releasing us from the credulousness of our forbears.
Sadly though that is going to be a VERY slow process!
Got some full stop ones on this forum.
ippy
-
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.
That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
You really do not know your bible do you? I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.
What would be the good invoking something that has about zero likelihood of actually being in existence Sass?
ippy
-
Got some full stop ones on this forum.
ippy
True, ippy! There none so ignorant as the willfully ignorant. :(
-
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass,
Was it really, Matt? Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
... the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!
Yes, I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it. Perhaps you can enlighten the board.
You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill. Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.
It's a good job your lot are in decline Hope, it wont go away completely there'll always be a few nutters around in this world whatever we do in our efforts to advance.
ippy
-
Yes, wresting the maintstream thinking well away from religious beliefs certainly has a mighty long way to go, especially when you think of BBC Radio 4 spending a whole 30 minutes yesterday afternoon on an earnest discussion among believers - *sigh* - on the subject of ghosts and how to communicate with them or not; and Five Live's top 40 items of the news most 'tweeted' or some such where No. 35 was about a famous 'medium' - *even deeper sighs* - some Colin Fry who has died. The presenters of this latter programme were sceptics, I'm pleased to say, but all the hype about how wonderful he was needed some sharp rebukes.
-
Belief in ghosts and mediums is neither a tenet of being religious or unique to the religious.
-
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill.
Evidence for this assertion?
-
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill.
Evidence for this assertion?
You choosing to ask for the evidence or perhaps you couldn't help it?
-
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill.
Evidence for this assertion?
You choosing to ask for the evidence or perhaps you couldn't help it?
Have you got any evidence that would confirm Shaker couldn't help it?
ippy
-
And why do you say it was invented Jeremy?
Because dead people don't come alive again.
-
And why do you say it was invented Jeremy?
Because dead people don't come alive again.
Not usually No.
-
Not usually No.
Not ever.
-
Not usually No.
Not ever.
Prove it.
-
Not usually No.
Not ever.
Prove it.
Why not pop along to your local undertaker and ask an expert - I expect they will confirm that after 2/3 days the dead really do stay dead.
-
Not usually No.
Not ever.
Prove it.
Name any confirmed resurrection anywhere in the World in the last hundred years.
Thought you couldn't.
-
Not usually No.
Not ever.
Prove it.
Name any confirmed resurrection anywhere in the World in the last hundred years.
Thought you couldn't.
Come come; let's not be parochial.
Name any confirmed resurrection (of an actually dead person, as opposed to an apparently dead person) anywhere in the world ever.
-
You can't understand the scriptures properly apart from the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. You should try it. The reason you don't accept Blessed Mary's perpetual virginity is because you have an heretical view of the Incarnation.
I have a real view of God and what he has told man.
You make silly excuses and remarks which even you with the knowledge you claim cannot sustain before God or man. :(
Jospeh would have had to divorce Mary because the sum of money or whatever was necessary then would have been paid. But Joseph under Jewish law would be required to consummate the marriage. You know nothing of Gods teachings just mans teachings. The Roman Catholic church was created by people who disobeyed the laws of God and did evil before his sight. It was not established by Christ or the disciples and the Prophets. It was someone trying to seize it because they believed in doing so they would have power over the world. But we see that Gods way is not the way of the RC early church.
It is based on Christ, Truth, Love and the Holy Spirit.
The reason sin, the world and the Devil cannot prevail against Gods Church is because it is based in truth within the person who believes in Christ and is born of the Holy Spirit. A person who loves God with all their heart (not power, wealth and money) and loves their neighbour as themselves..(does not kill them for not believing in God or being a gentile).
Not all who call me Lord! Lord! will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
You belong to an establishment which does not belong to Christ and has never known Christ... Maybe you have left that establishment but you need to leave their teachings behind and draw near to Christ and know the truth.
-
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.
That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?
You really do not know your bible do you? I suggest you stop thinking about what you were told and actually read it, read it for yourself asking God to guide you.
I wouldn't ask YOUR god the time of day and, if I did, I would then check my watch and believe that rather than him!
Your book is 2,000 years out of date, it was a different world then - drag yourself into the 21st centiury Sass, the hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness of your god is better known now than that load of historic rubbish you call the bible!
You are entitled to your beliefs but you need to realise that more and more people are recognising it for the tosh that it is.
Matthew 5:10-12 (King James Version)
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
When Jesus was tested or falsely accused he used the scriptures the OT to reply to those who falsely accused and doubted him. I am just a human being and I know that true worshippers worship God in Spirit and Truth.
You being at fault is seen clearly in you proffering the way of the old covenant and not the new way of the new covenant.
God has clearly said: I will make a new covenant. Not like the OLD covenant.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
This is the new covenant:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
King James Bible
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
You have never learned the new way of the covenant for even now you compare people to the old and reject the new. We will both give an account one day.
You need to examine yourself and the things you judge others by.
For the truth is within us....
-
Blah blah blah! Mary and Jospeh were never actually married in the full sense except in appearance and I don't know why you're bringing Roman Catholicism into this either. Your doctrine is clearly from the devil. The perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary is a natural consequence of the Incarnation, which you would see if you didn't have such a screwed understanding of who Christ is: God made flesh.
-
Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
Which only goes to show just how little good Christianty has achieved in 2,000 years - S F A! (and no, I do not mean Sweet fanny Adams!)
I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it. Perhaps you can enlighten the board.
Hypocricy - Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.
Vindictiveness - PObey me and my rules or you will roast in Hell forever.
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill. Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.
Every single Pagan deity, female and male, gave humanity freewill, thousands of years before your Johnny-come-lately.
Get your rose-coloured glasses and your blinkers off, your head out of the clouds and your feet back on the ground.
You really believe that rant made any sense?
You have not shown or produces any well thought out and referenced replies from what I have read. Want to start all over again. You have taken your ranting and anger and displayed it without any real grounds for it. So now go back and produced a well documented and reasoned response.
-
Blah blah blah! Mary and Jospeh were never actually married in the full sense except in appearance and I don't know why you're bringing Roman Catholicism into this either. Your doctrine is clearly from the devil. The perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary is a natural consequence of the Incarnation, which you would see if you didn't have such a screwed understanding of who Christ is: God made flesh.
If Mary was never married in any full sense except in appearance then why did the gospel say:
King James Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
So divorce her quietly.
There is NOTHING in the teachings of the Prophets, the disciples or the Laws of God which give merit to your teaching. If it isn't in the OT, it isn't a teaching and it isn't a fact.
You can insult me and you can make all manner of lies up.
But Mary has NO importance in the Christian faith after the birth of Christ. She was Gods servant and the same standing as you and I. As Christ shows when he says:
King James Bible
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Shall Christ false so you can be true? God forbid... you are false and your teaching. For Mary is like all who believe in Christ and love God first... They are those who do the will of God. This teaching of yours is not the will of God and does not come from God.
-
Your doctrine is clearly from the devil.
I knew there was something weird about it.
-
Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
Which only goes to show just how little good Christianty has achieved in 2,000 years - S F A! (and no, I do not mean Sweet fanny Adams!)
I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it. Perhaps you can enlighten the board.
Hypocricy - Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.
Vindictiveness - PObey me and my rules or you will roast in Hell forever.
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill. Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.
Every single Pagan deity, female and male, gave humanity freewill, thousands of years before your Johnny-come-lately.
Get your rose-coloured glasses and your blinkers off, your head out of the clouds and your feet back on the ground.
You really believe that rant made any sense?
You have not shown or produces any well thought out and referenced replies from what I have read. Want to start all over again. You have taken your ranting and anger and displayed it without any real grounds for it. So now go back and produced a well documented and reasoned response.
You really do take the biscuit!
You do not have a single thought in your head or a single word form your mouth or typed on your computer that is a product for the freewill that whatever deity you follow gave you.
You are locked into a book that has absolutely no connection with the world in which we live.
You have absolutely no idea from whence comes my anger at the Christian churches - and you, my blinkered and pathetic Sassy, are just one facet of my rejection of Christianity.
I will lay bets that if you thought that your god, or his son, demanded the life of your child as proof of your loyalty you would not hesitate for second to give it.
Putting as bluntly as the Rules allow - you totally and completely disgust me!
-
Blah blah blah! Mary and Jospeh were never actually married in the full sense except in appearance and I don't know why you're bringing Roman Catholicism into this either. Your doctrine is clearly from the devil. The perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary is a natural consequence of the Incarnation, which you would see if you didn't have such a screwed understanding of who Christ is: God made flesh.
If Mary was never married in any full sense except in appearance then why did the gospel say:
King James Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
So divorce her quietly.
There is NOTHING in the teachings of the Prophets, the disciples or the Laws of God which give merit to your teaching. If it isn't in the OT, it isn't a teaching and it isn't a fact.
You can insult me and you can make all manner of lies up.
But Mary has NO importance in the Christian faith after the birth of Christ. She was Gods servant and the same standing as you and I. As Christ shows when he says:
King James Bible
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Shall Christ false so you can be true? God forbid... you are false and your teaching. For Mary is like all who believe in Christ and love God first... They are those who do the will of God. This teaching of yours is not the will of God and does not come from God.
As I said, your doctrine us clearly from the devil. If you believed that Christ is truely God made flesh you wouldn't make such foolish comments and you would know that the blessed Theotokos remaimed a virgin. You fall into the same error as the heretic Helvidius. There are two things you should read. The first is Blessed Jerome's tract against Helvidius and the second is the Protoevangelium of James.
-
Have you ever noticed that we still have greed, racism, murder, poverty, and a whole host of other everyday social malaises that existed then. OK, in some ways those malaises have become more subtle in their execution here in the West, but are we really that much different as humans?
Which only goes to show just how little good Christianty has achieved in 2,000 years - S F A! (and no, I do not mean Sweet fanny Adams!)
I've heard a lot about this 'hypocricy and tyrannical vindictiveness', yet have never actually seen any evidential examples of it. Perhaps you can enlighten the board.
Hypocricy - Exodus 22:18 and the Sixth Commandment.
Vindictiveness - PObey me and my rules or you will roast in Hell forever.
I think that it is something that that 'hypocritical and tyrannically vindictive' God endowed humanity with that enables you to say such a thing. It's called freewill. Not sure that any deity other than the Judeo-Christian one even thought to provide that.
Every single Pagan deity, female and male, gave humanity freewill, thousands of years before your Johnny-come-lately.
Get your rose-coloured glasses and your blinkers off, your head out of the clouds and your feet back on the ground.
You really believe that rant made any sense?
You have not shown or produces any well thought out and referenced replies from what I have read. Want to start all over again. You have taken your ranting and anger and displayed it without any real grounds for it. So now go back and produced a well documented and reasoned response.
You really do take the biscuit!
You do not have a single thought in your head or a single word form your mouth or typed on your computer that is a product for the freewill that whatever deity you follow gave you.
The fact I replied to you in the first instance shows how wrong you are about a single thought and freewill on my part, Do you EVER REALLY reason with yourself before you reply.
You are locked into a book that has absolutely no connection with the world in which we live.
So tell me how the bible would be connected or unconnected with the world we live in. If you knew the bible or why it exists you would not have made such a ridiculous statement which you cannot validate.
You have absolutely no idea from whence comes my anger at the Christian churches - and you, my blinkered and pathetic Sassy, are just one facet of my rejection of Christianity.
There is absolutely NOTHING, if not a believer in God which would give you standing or reason to reject or have anger at the Christian Church. The truth is that had you had any real understanding and experience of the true Church and the bible truths you would never have written these replies to post in the first instance.
I will lay bets that if you thought that your god, or his son, demanded the life of your child as proof of your loyalty you would not hesitate for second to give it.
How and why would God need the life of my child,. God is not a pagan false god,
The sacrifices he wants are thanks and praise. He created my children they are already his. I see no sense in your comment.
Putting as bluntly as the Rules allow - you totally and completely disgust me!
You are the person who should hang their head in disgrace and shame for even thinking let alone writing it... :( :o
-
Blah blah blah! Mary and Jospeh were never actually married in the full sense except in appearance and I don't know why you're bringing Roman Catholicism into this either. Your doctrine is clearly from the devil. The perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary is a natural consequence of the Incarnation, which you would see if you didn't have such a screwed understanding of who Christ is: God made flesh.
If Mary was never married in any full sense except in appearance then why did the gospel say:
King James Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
So divorce her quietly.
There is NOTHING in the teachings of the Prophets, the disciples or the Laws of God which give merit to your teaching. If it isn't in the OT, it isn't a teaching and it isn't a fact.
You can insult me and you can make all manner of lies up.
But Mary has NO importance in the Christian faith after the birth of Christ. She was Gods servant and the same standing as you and I. As Christ shows when he says:
King James Bible
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Shall Christ false so you can be true? God forbid... you are false and your teaching. For Mary is like all who believe in Christ and love God first... They are those who do the will of God. This teaching of yours is not the will of God and does not come from God.
As I said, your doctrine us clearly from the devil. If you believed that Christ is truely God made flesh you wouldn't make such foolish comments and you would know that the blessed Theotokos remaimed a virgin. You fall into the same error as the heretic Helvidius. There are two things you should read. The first is Blessed Jerome's tract against Helvidius and the second is the Protoevangelium of James.
I see you avoid the FACT and the TRUTH from God to follow your own wrong path of false beliefs.
As God says that YOU SHALL NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS....
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
God never gave you those teachings and nowhere in the OT are they supported.
You have had the matter made plain to you and no longer have any excuse for your ignoring Gods word in favour of your own and mans.
Take heed for when the master returns to give rewards you will reap what you sowed.
-
Rep;ly to #393 - Sassy
You are entitled to your beliefs, whatever they may be.
Equally I am entitled to consider every iota of your beliefs to be total and complete bollocks - and I do!
Your attachment to the tyrannical hypocirite and the book of what are supposed to be his words - the Word of God - is pathetic.
Your Church, the church of Christ, has been responsible, in one way or another, for the deaths of more hiuman beings than any other group or orgaization in history. The only bigger killer than Christianity is the plethora of diseases that your loving God has inflicted upon the human race.
You are the person who should hang their head in disgrace and shame for even thinking let alone writing it
Disgrace and shame because I do not believe as you do! I take great pride in rejecting your beliefs and it is only the Rules that prevent me from telling you so in the words that I would prefer to use!
I repeat - you and your religion and its sanctimonious claptrap disgust me. I suggest that you take it and stick it where the sun don't shine.
You may now respond to this post in any way you see fit and with as many quotes from the bible as you can find - you will, as far as I am concerned, be 'talking" to yourself!
-
Rep;ly to #393 - Sassy
You are entitled to your beliefs, whatever they may be.
Equally I am entitled to consider every iota of your beliefs to be total and complete bollocks - and I do!
You don't know every iota of my beliefs. It would be impossible for you to say your opinion is reasonable or informed.
Your attachment to the tyrannical hypocirite and the book of what are supposed to be his words - the Word of God - is pathetic.
What attachment is that. What parts of the book are you basing your decision on.
As I said no reasoned or tangible evidence to support anything you say.
Your Church, the church of Christ, has been responsible, in one way or another, for the deaths of more hiuman beings than any other group or orgaization in history. The only bigger killer than Christianity is the plethora of diseases that your loving God has inflicted upon the human race.
I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church and they and they alone are the offenders you speak about. Can you not differentiate between the true and false church. Surely if you had listened to Christ then the Church is built on love and truth. Remind me why NERO lied about the Christians and fed them to Lions.
TO cover their own evil.
You are the person who should hang their head in disgrace and shame for even thinking let alone writing it
Disgrace and shame because I do not believe as you do! I take great pride in rejecting your beliefs and it is only the Rules that prevent me from telling you so in the words that I would prefer to use!
Nothing to do with you not believing in what I believe about God.
Your bad behaviour and reply was about you and was not caused by anything I believe. It was simply you and your attitude being wrong. The same attitude of those liars calling themselves Christians who murdered and tortured innocent people. You can see what you hate in your own attitude and that does not require belief in any god. It requires only man be himself.
I repeat - you and your religion and its sanctimonious claptrap disgust me. I suggest that you take it and stick it where the sun don't shine.
You may now respond to this post in any way you see fit and with as many quotes from the bible as you can find - you will, as far as I am concerned, be 'talking" to yourself!
Your own ignorance and hatred is your downfall. No one can harm you more than you harm yourself, already. I feel sadness for you. Especially your ignorance in which you do it...
-
I see you avoid the FACT and the TRUTH from God to follow your own wrong path of false beliefs.
As God says that YOU SHALL NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS....
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
God never gave you those teachings and nowhere in the OT are they supported.
You have had the matter made plain to you and no longer have any excuse for your ignoring Gods word in favour of your own and mans.
Take heed for when the master returns to give rewards you will reap what you sowed.
On the contrary, that you do not believe in the Incarnation or the New Testament scriptures shows that you are without foundation, that you have built your house on sand and you will be ignorant of the truth as long as you continue to do so because you do not know Christ.
-
I see you avoid the FACT and the TRUTH from God to follow your own wrong path of false beliefs.
As God says that YOU SHALL NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS....
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
God never gave you those teachings and nowhere in the OT are they supported.
You have had the matter made plain to you and no longer have any excuse for your ignoring Gods word in favour of your own and mans.
Take heed for when the master returns to give rewards you will reap what you sowed.
On the contrary, that you do not believe in the Incarnation or the New Testament scriptures shows that you are without foundation, that you have built your house on sand and you will be ignorant of the truth as long as you continue to do so because you do not know Christ.
Blimey, this looks like a case of thieves falling out! :)
-
Always entertaining :)
-
I see you avoid the FACT and the TRUTH from God to follow your own wrong path of false beliefs.
As God says that YOU SHALL NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS....
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
God never gave you those teachings and nowhere in the OT are they supported.
You have had the matter made plain to you and no longer have any excuse for your ignoring Gods word in favour of your own and mans.
Take heed for when the master returns to give rewards you will reap what you sowed.
On the contrary, that you do not believe in the Incarnation or the New Testament scriptures shows that you are without foundation, that you have built your house on sand and you will be ignorant of the truth as long as you continue to do so because you do not know Christ.
Utter rubbish... this is not about the NT, which I believe to be the writing of the disciples.
What I do know is God, The Prophets, Jesus Christ and the disciples never had the NT and they were never referred to as scripture and NEVER foretold to be scripture in the OT.
Since they were not the writing of the Prophets and were NOT part of the New Covenant then you my friend and those of the Roman Catholic Church disobeyed God by adding to his scriptures. I Incarnation of what?
Christ was incarnate of the virgin Mary... God was not made flesh it was Jesus Christ and he was made flesh by the power of God and Gods word.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Christ was made flesh by the power of God and the Holy Spirit. It was an immaculate conception. But NOWHERE in the OT does it say the New Covenant will be based on belief
in the immaculate conception or that there will be an incarnate scripture or belief that God would be made flesh....
Christ said: " I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me,"
"Eternal life is knowing you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent"
You see nothing to do with incarnate... I believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh and God was with him. He is to be called the SON of God not God. But God spoke through Christ. He did his own works in Christ.
Peter says:
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Peter says the same thing as I do. That God anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Ghost and with Power; who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil; FOR GOD WAS WITH HIM.
You try to change the argument every time because you cannot answer when your beliefs are questioned with scripture. You see the disciples tell you clearly that Jesus was anointed with Gods Holy Spirit. Had God been made flesh then God would not require anyone to annoint him with the Holy Spirit or power.
In the NT the disciples clearly tell you that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Jesus Christ came in the flesh...
False doctrines and beliefs crept in during the early church. Jesus Christ was Jesus Christ he was NOT God and he told everyone he came to do God will and the Father did his own work through him. He also clearly told you that his words were Spirit and they were life.
The main reason he could and would NOT claim to be God is because that is the very thing the Antichrist will do.
]
King James Bible
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Man is Gods temple for by his Spirit he dwells in us in the new covenant.
So the true God is one and shares his glory as God with no one.
King James Bible
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Where capital letters appear then the original name was Yahweh the name of God which Jehovah is also used for. It was used by the scholars because they did not want to write the name of God.
Jesus Christ came in the flesh and he was the Son of God.
He hath declared God unto us. We know God because of Christ and we know God loves us because of Christ. What you are doing is holding on to dogmas which have no purpose or part in the covenant of Christ unto eternal life.
My salvation depends only on the body and blood of Jesus Christ through sacrifice and resurrection by the power and truth of God. Your beliefs in dogmas have no affect or power on the truth of Jesus Christ to save men. The true worshippers worship God in Spirit and Truth. That truth being Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Put your dogmas away and embrace the truth of Jesus Christ and the fact God the FATHER sent him.
-
All heresy begins with misunderstanding the person of Christ. It's no wonder you're full of heresy and blasphemy, add to that outright idiocy.
-
...
A couple of things, Sassy. AO is not a Roman Catholic so there is no point complaining about what the RCs have or have not done. Secondly, please would you post in English rather than Jacobean English if you want people to read what you write.
-
...
A couple of things, Sassy. AO is not a Roman Catholic so there is no point complaining about what the RCs have or have not done. Secondly, please would you post in English rather than Jacobean English if you want people to read what you write.
I thought AO was a Catholic!
As for Sass, I think she has created her own religion, the only worshipper being herself. ;D I don't think any of the Christians on this forum see it her way!
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Yes and told us many times on this board. I've also pointed it out to Sassy in the past.
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Can you explain the difference please, thanks. :)
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Can you explain the difference please, thanks. :)
Something about the Pope, a bear and the woods or is that something else? :)
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Can you explain the difference please, thanks. :)
One could write pages and pages but to keep it short the East (Orthodoxy) and the West (Roman Catholicism) separated formerly in 1054, though a gradual drifting apart began before that. The East would say that the West went into schism and are thus no longer part of the Church. The reasons for this are many but to name a couple of the main ones would be the addition of the Filioque into the Creed by the West and the claims of the Roman bishop to have jurisdiction over the whole Church.
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Yes and told us many times on this board. I've also pointed it out to Sassy in the past.
Indeed. And when pointed out, Sassy just continued ranting as before as if AO was a Catholic.
I went to an Orthodox wedding last year. Nice ikons - incredibly boring service.
Filioque - so little and so much :)
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Can you explain the difference please, thanks. :)
One could write pages and pages but to keep it short the East (Orthodoxy) and the West (Roman Catholicism) separated formerly in 1054, though a gradual drifting apart began before that. The East would say that the West went into schism and are thus no longer part of the Church. The reasons for this are many but to name a couple of the main ones would be the addition of the Filioque into the Creed by the West and the claims of the Roman bishop to have jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Thanks. :)
-
I thought AO was a Catholic!
I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.
Yes and told us many times on this board. I've also pointed it out to Sassy in the past.
Indeed. And when pointed out, Sassy just continued ranting as before as if AO was a Catholic.
I went to an Orthodox wedding last year. Nice ikons - incredibly boring service.
Filioque - so little and so much :)
I suppose it seems like that but we would say that its addition has serious theological consequences concerning the Godhead, consequences which equals heresy, as well as being disobedient to the councils which state there is to be no other Creed.
-
Utter rubbish... this is not about the NT, which I believe to be the writing of the disciples.
What I do know is God, The Prophets, Jesus Christ and the disciples never had the NT and they were never referred to as scripture and NEVER foretold to be scripture in the OT.
I would question the validity of this claim. There are in fact two passages in the NT which specifically recognise other NT writings as having the authority of Scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 reads, ‘Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’. A clear indication that Paul’s writings (or at least those available at the time of the writing of 2 Peter), were accorded the same authority as the other (OT?) Scriptures.
Then in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 we read the following. ‘Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.’
The command not to muzzle an ox is an OT quotation from Deut. 25:4. However, the labourer deserves his wages is a direct NT quotation from Luke 10:7 (also Matt. 10:10). Thus, it seems that the written records of the statements of Jesus (the synoptic Gospels) were already recognised as having the authority of Scripture at the time of writing of 1 Timothy.