Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

If you look at my posts I am Christian I believe all have fallen short. All are in some measure and at some times antichrist. Theologically speaking that ''antichrist'' is defined as evil. You are a theology student are you not you should know this stuff. Secondly I believe that religiously people should move from paganism to Christ.

Is your particular version of Christianity very anti comma?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't look at the Christian saying killing witches was fine......................................., being murdered by Christians was all part of God's plan.

Where did Spud say either of those things?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is your particular version of Christianity very anti comma?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Nearly Sane]

Where did Spud say either of those things?

So if I replace Christians with Jews, you will be happy with it?

[ippy]

In as much as much and so far as they are antichrist.

Wouldn't it make just as much sense to be anti-pixie Vlad? Or anti-unicorn?  Both equally as likely to exist or have existed as the specific person you refer to as Jesus.

What'the point in being anti something mythical or anything else mythical that much more than likely doesn't exist in the first place?

ippy

[Rhiannon]

The suggestion that one's self and affilitions might not be going in the direction of Christ is often taken with offence.

Not by me. I just find it risible.

[Shaker]

If you look at my posts I am Christian

I have looked at them, which is why it was in some doubt.

I believe that religiously people should move from paganism to Christ.

Why? Lots of people - increasing numbers, apparently - give pagan as a religious adherence, affiliation and identity, and presumably they're happy and comfortable thusly. Why 'should' they change?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wouldn't it make just as much sense to be anti-pixie Vlad? Or anti-unicorn?  Both equally as likely to exist or have existed as the specific person you refer to as Jesus.

With all due respect that's just extreme 'Jesus Myth' nonsense.

[Shaker]

The suggestion that one's self and affilitions might not be going in the direction of Christ is often taken with offence.

Presumably it's the order that people should go "in the direction of Christ" which people find arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have looked at them, which is why it was in some doubt.Why? Lots of people - increasing numbers, apparently - give pagan as a religious adherence, affiliation and identity, and presumably they're happy and comfortable thusly. Why 'should' they change?

Argumentum ad populum.

Pagan religions in this country could be one of a few things Shaker......An exodus from Christianity, an exodus from nominal Christianity, an exodus from secular humanism, an exodus from atheism, Consumer ''shopping basket'' religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably it's the order that people should go "in the direction of Christ" which people find arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

I think they find Christians that or even, as I once did assume that those accusations were true.

There is another manifestation of such false beliefs which is to believe that New Atheism is not arrogant, ignorant or offensive despite evidence to the contrary.

As far as Christ is concerned I think most people are in Awe of him and his reputation, some even respectfully so.

[BeRational]

I think they find Christians that or even, as I once did assume that those accusations were true.

There is another manifestation of such false beliefs which is to believe that New Atheism is not arrogant, ignorant or offensive despite evidence to the contrary.

As far as Christ is concerned I think most people are in Awe of him and his reputation, some even respectfully so.

I am not in awe of him at all.

I do not believe he was a single real person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not in awe of him at all.

I do not believe he was a single real person.

I don't think history is on your side however you do think he is an amalgam.....of mainly good or evil would you say.

Is he, as an amalgam, arrogant, ignorant and offensive?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably it's the order that people should go "in the direction of Christ" which people find arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

If one has become ''religious'' one has made a step in a direction. Presumably that movement is felt to be right which suggests there are wrong paths too.

[SusanDoris]

Vlad

You say that the answer is in your post to NS. Well, just quote me the exact words that make it clear whether you think it was in God's plan or not. And don't tell me to say what 'it' is - refer to bluehilside's question.

[BeRational]

I don't think history is on your side however you do think he is an amalgam.....of mainly good or evil would you say.

Is he, as an amalgam, arrogant, ignorant and offensive?

I think history IS on my side.

Is Jesus taught in History. NO.
I would say arrogant certainly, how could the character not be, claiming to be god. How more arrogant could you get?

A mixture of good and bad created by people long ago, that did not realize some of the things they were writing were bad.

Slavery is a good example. It was thought perfectly fine at the time, so no surprise the bible is all for it.

Morality has moved on, and this once common practice is now seen as inhuman and barbaric. The character Jesus did not spot that, because he was just a character of his time, accepting the moral situation at the time.

[Shaker]

Argumentum ad populum.

No. An AAP goes: 'X is true because a large number of people believe X is true.'

Simply stating that there's a significant and growing number of pagans isn't an argument but a statement.

Pagan religions in this country could be one of a few things Shaker......An exodus from Christianity, an exodus from nominal Christianity, an exodus from secular humanism, an exodus from atheism, Consumer ''shopping basket'' religion.

And?

[Shaker]

If one has become ''religious'' one has made a step in a direction. Presumably that movement is felt to be right which suggests there are wrong paths too.

Not necessarily by any means - witness a thread I started recently on Omnism: Unitarian Universalism would be an example, I think. Some strands of Hinduism likewise.

[Rhiannon]

Yes but a belief in universalism means a nice god who saves everyone. And that's not fair.

[Shaker]

Yes but a belief in universalism means a nice god who saves everyone. And that's not fair.

It beats the alternative, viz., somebody being punished for ever and ever and ever and ever, continuously, without end, no suggestion of the possibility of rehabilitation, correction or remorse.

I can't conceive of any crime that merits that. That's not punishment; that's pure sadism.

[Rhiannon]

It beats the alternative, viz., somebody being punished for ever and ever and ever and ever, continuously, without end, no suggestion of the possibility of rehabilitation, correction or remorse.

I can't conceive of any crime that merits that. That's not punishment; that's pure sadism.

Well I used to be a universalist, and quite frankly you'd have thought I'd sprouted horns and a tail for all the hate my beliefs attracted.

[Shaker]

Well I used to be a universalist, and quite frankly you'd have thought I'd sprouted horns and a tail for all the hate my beliefs attracted.

... which suggests that Nietzsche was right in his assessment that for some theists there's a generous streak of ressentiment (resentment: N. always used the French term) in their ideas of (usually posthumous) justice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think history IS on my side.

Is Jesus taught in History. NO.
I would say arrogant certainly, how could the character not be, claiming to be god. How more arrogant could you get?

A mixture of good and bad created by people long ago, that did not realize some of the things they were writing were bad.

Slavery is a good example. It was thought perfectly fine at the time, so no surprise the bible is all for it.

Morality has moved on, and this once common practice is now seen as inhuman and barbaric. The character Jesus did not spot that, because he was just a character of his time, accepting the moral situation at the time.

History curriculums are chosen.

If you think that Jesus is arrogant because of his claims to divinity. That is a monotheistic view. Congratulations, part of you is theist.

If you think morality moves on then morality has no intrinsic meaning or value since it is something that is changing. If you think that the more contemporary a morality is that is self defeating since Jesus morals were contemporary then.

[Shaker]

If you think that Jesus is arrogant because of his claims to divinity. That is a monotheistic view. Congratulations, part of you is theist.

I would love you to try to explain the "logic" behind that statement 

If you think morality moves on then morality has no intrinsic meaning or value since it is something that is changing. If you think that the more contemporary a morality is that is self defeating since Jesus morals were contemporary then.

And that as well 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

You say that the answer is in your post to NS. Well, just quote me the exact words that make it clear whether you think it was in God's plan or not. And don't tell me to say what 'it' is - refer to bluehilside's question.

I have said it is evil and I suggested that evil is not to be considered as in God's plan. However ,as I said and as you seem to have wilfully ignored, God works round the contingencies evil creates. I don't know if I could call that a plan in the way I think you mean it.

It is not wise to give yes/ no answers to ignorant questions