God is being killed

[Owlswing]

(((((Christianity is more effective than when it's in a majority.)))))

Meaning?

We should be being scared shitless as the fewer they get the more effective they are!

Sassy must be reading the latest reduction figures for existing practicing Christians in a blaze of orgasmic ecstacy!

[floo]

We should be being scared shitless as the fewer they get the more effective they are!

Sassy must be reading the latest reduction figures for existing practicing Christians in a blaze of orgasmic ecstacy!

That was Hope's quote, not one of Sass's!

[john]

Hope said this....

They destroyed the libraries that had been built up over centuries and, if it hadn't been for Christians fleeing from the hordes and taking as many of the books as they could which became the libraries in the Western extremities of the continent - Scotland, Ireland and Wales - much of what we regard as the classics would have disappeared for all time. 

It wasn't until Chritianity began to emerge from the Western fringes and recolonised first England and then the mainland from the West that Europe began to emerge from the Dark Ages - circa 800AD.

THIS IS A COMPLETE INVERSION OF THE FACTS.....

It was Christians who destroyed and supressed "The Books"/ancient learning because it contradicted their biblical beliefs. Virtually all of the ancient Greek, Egyptian etc. literature we now have has been recovered from Islamic sources and through archeological findings. 

Christianity even restricted the peoples ability to read for themselves to ensure only priests could interpret and disseminate the little information the church allowed.

Your version of events is completely untrue.   

[Brownie]

Let's not forget the Early Kushite of the Nubians and the Sacred Texts of the Native American Nations.

[john]

http://rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html

Interesting link here detailing the facts about how and why Christianity suppressed ancient knowledge.

You should read it Hopey!

[Rhiannon]

There is also a wealth of Christian wisdom that has been lost because other Christians destroyed it for belonging to the wrong kind of Christianity,

[Hope]

THIS IS A COMPLETE INVERSION OF THE FACTS.....

It was Christians who destroyed and supressed "The Books"/ancient learning because it contradicted their biblical beliefs. Virtually all of the ancient Greek, Egyptian etc. literature we now have has been recovered from Islamic sources and through archeological findings. 

Christianity even restricted the peoples ability to read for themselves to ensure only priests could interpret and disseminate the little information the church allowed.

Your version of events is completely untrue.   

evidence of your accusation, please, john.  Perhaps you can quote the instructions, prefetably in the Bible, that shows that Christianity (as opposed to humans) did what you suggest - especially before the end of the 1st millennium AD.  Remember, too, that the Church started setting up educational establishments for people other than priests in the middle of the 1st millennium.

[john]

Hope

Read the link for a start

And then some history books not designed solely to propagate the Christian view point.

For instance the ancient Greeks knew the earth was a globe. Knowledge suppressed by the Christian church because heaven was up and hell was down and Eden was the centre of the universe. See what happened to Copernicus and Galileo when they said different.

The way you distort fact to suit your own agenda is outrageous.   

[Shaker]

... and then there's Giordano Bruno. Lesser known to most, better example though.

Likewise for Giulio Cesare Vanini. Not generally known, ought to be.

[Owlswing]

Hope

The way you distort fact to suit your own agenda is outrageous.

I just hope that when he was a teacher he did not treat the information that he was teaching his students in the same way as her treats information that he "teaches" on here,

Unfortuately I cannot in all honesty say that I would be sure that he did not.

[Nearly Sane]

Bugger all happened to Copernicus. The book was questioned way after he died at least by the Catholic Church. The Reformers were much quicker off the mark on that.


Galileo's issue was more questioning the Aristotelian system rather than the Bible, and arise out works that had a great deal of sponsorship from the church.


Dear Giordano, to whose statue I make a pilgrimage when in Rome, and raise a glass in the Campo dei Fiori, is undoubtedly a lost genius but his trial concentrated on what were seen as specific theological issues, not his cosmology. There is certainly an interplay between the two but it's not a simple matter of oppression.


All 3 enjoyed considerable support from the church as well difficulty. The idea of something like the Catholic church, or Christianity as being a single monolith is not historic, though institutions love to be seen that way. We like simple histories, written in black and white, but then we like simple futures too.

[Hope]

Hope

Read the link for a start

Didn't realise that there was a link, but that may have had something to do with my using my phone for my last post.

And then some history books not designed solely to propagate the Christian view point.

Sorry, I wasn't quoting books but information that I have gleaned over the years from a variety of sources, from Early Christian histories, to history scholars of a variety of belief systems.

For instance the ancient Greeks knew the earth was a globe. Knowledge suppressed by the Christian church because heaven was up and hell was down and Eden was the centre of the universe. See what happened to Copernicus and Galileo when they said different.

I'm not sure what the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the globe was/is, but the most of the early church didn't seem to hold to the flat-earth thinking - "During the early Church period, the spherical view continued to be widely held, with some notable exceptions."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Early_Christian_Church).  OK, some leaders of the church questioned it - folk like St Augustine - but then so did several notable non-Christians of the time.

The way you distort fact to suit your own agenda is outrageous.

You might do well to take your own advice, john (and owly, of course).

[Dicky Underpants]

All 3 enjoyed considerable support from the church as well difficulty. The idea of something like the Catholic church, or Christianity as being a single monolith is not historic, though institutions love to be seen that way. We like simple histories, written in black and white, but then we like simple futures too.

Though no fan of the Catholic Church myself, I think this is a very fair analysis. The Galileo affair is often cited as an example of the dastardly oppression of scientific enquiry by the latter institution, but Santayana's* account of the events makes it clear that this was not the whole story. Galileo was as much a victim of his own conceit and stubbornness (not to mention his particularly stupid attempt to portray the contemporary pontiff as a complete idiot**) as the restrictive methods of the Church. And I believe that there were certain things about his theories which he simply did not have the data to prove as fact at the time. This didn't stop him stating such things as facts. He was right, after all. But he was no martyr to truth.

**Which may well have been the case.

In the case of Copernicus - exactly as you say. He kept his ideas under lock and key, and in fact was led to them more by the promptings of his obsessive-compulsive disorder than a desire to "follow the burning light of truth". Koestler's assessment (The Sleepwalkers) is interesting.

*I typed this very fast in a library, just before closing time. I originally typed "Santana". Now the latino psychedelic rock musician may well have been a bit of a philosopher. And indeed the venerable Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás (known here as George Santayana) may well have liked to strum the electric guitar in his spare time....

[Hope]

I just hope that when he was a teacher he did not treat the information that he was teaching his students in the same way as her treats information that he "teaches" on here,

Unfortuately I cannot in all honesty say that I would be sure that he did not.

As I've previously mentioned, owl, it might be worth your checking your facts before making this kind of baseless accusation.I post here in the same way that I taught in schools - only after a study in depth and breadth of the issue, and acknowledging that over time there have been a variety of opinions on issues like the ones under debate. 

[Hope]

http://rejectionofpascalswager.net/reasonfathers.html

Interesting link here detailing the facts about how and why Christianity suppressed ancient knowledge.

You should read it Hopey!

It is interesting, but as it is written for and carried by a skeptics website it certainly can't be deemed to be unbiased and therefore has to be read in that light.  If you can find me an article or something that is NOT biased, one way or the other, I'll look at it more favourably.

[Owlswing]

That was Hope's quote, not one of Sass's!

I didn't say it was Sassy's quote, I merely posted my view of what Sassy's reaction would be to the comment regardless of who made it.

[Hope]

We should be being scared shitless as the fewer they get the more effective they are!

Sassy must be reading the latest reduction figures for existing practicing Christians in a blaze of orgasmic ecstacy!

Owly, its perhaps worth your remembering that marginalised groups are at their most effective/productive when they are small and sing from the same proverbial hymnsheet.  They become less effective as they begin to sing from diverse 'hymnsheets'.

[Shaker]

Any sign of the dwindling number of Christians all 'singing from the same hymn sheet' then?

[Owlswing]

Owly, its perhaps worth your remembering that marginalised groups are at their most effective/productive when they are small and sing from the same proverbial hymnsheet.  They become less effective as they begin to sing from diverse 'hymnsheets'.

As if the Christian Church isn't militant enough as it is!

As to your comment I already knew that or I wouldn't have made the comment I did! I see you didn't actually bother to read my post which stated that!

[Sassy]

Sorry but WRONG again - Firstly I don't make fact fit MY criteria, unlike some here & secondly
Jesus did NOT come to create the Christian faith - He lived & died a JEW !!!!!!! FACT
So YOU are a Jew, NO ??

9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Christ did fulfill the criteria as laid down by the Prophets.
Had you been educated in the things of the Messiah you would have known it was the Messiah who would bring the final truth hence the diverse different beliefs held by Pharisee ad Sadducee. The Messiah to bring the final truth and teach them.

The Jewish council could not put anyone to death but as we see Jesus broke no law and the Romans proved that and the washing of his hands shows he wanted no part in putting Christ to death because he had no committed any crime not even against the Jews.

[Sassy]

Unfortunately this is the one FACT that Christians are still trying to get over. It is also the one that they will never, ever, be able to reconcile with ther neverending drivel.

No matter how they twist it turn it, re-evaluate it, re-write it or re-vomit it!

Ignorance abounds....

If Christ wasn't a Jew and lived the life of a Jew he couldn't be the Messiah.
There is dumb then just plain ignorance. You and Trippy appear blissfully happy to wear your ignorance like a badge of honour when in fact it shows how little you know about being Jew or the Messiah.

[Sassy]

Not sneaky at all - just an observation which you appear to be unable to deal with.

You say that Jesus is your lord.

You say that your lord cannot be killed.

You say that Jesus was killed by either the Romans or the Jews.

See your quandary? 

Contradiction remains the foundation of your mythology.

Your lack of knowledge and the stupid idea of twisting the irrelevant is where you are coming from.

Either make individual bullet points and give scripture to confirm or admit you just make things up as you go alone.
UTTER DRIVEL no Quandry... Are you sure you are on the right forum?

[trippymonkey]

MMMMMM INDEED !!!!!
There's none so blind..... etc etc

[Sassy]

Careful, Khatru. I think you'll find that Sass believes that Christ was the Son of God, but not God the Son.

Not that it matters a hoot to anyone but her.

The truth is that God clearly points out in Luke 1. 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 makes it clear as does the disciples that he has made God known to us.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:49
49  Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”


Micah 5:2
 2  And you, O Bethʹle·hem Ephʹra·thah,
The one too little to be among the thousands of Judah,
From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel,
Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.

Planned before the beginning of the world.

God telling the end from the beginning.

So why not read up on the Messiah you and Khatru might learn something. It is no good having a debate where you have nothing to argue with.
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 hence he never at any time declared he was God. He said God had sent him and was with him.
Acts 10 Peter also declares the same.

King James Bible
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Jesus came in flesh not God. God was with Christ and we see in Acts 7.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

As believers the truth is paramount we also know that Paul clearly understood that when everything was complete then Christ would place everything including himself back under God.


24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Christ then become subject to God and is placed back under God.

So whatever it was you hoped to avoid you cannot avoid it by misrepresentation or stirring up the difference in beliefs.
I follow the OT and then what is in the NT has to be verified by the OLD.
Being called the Son of God makes himself being equal to God in such a way it was considered blasphemy.
But Christ shows that the definition of being a Son or descendant is about doing as your Father/ancestor did.


39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Jesus said God was his FATHER, that can be clearly seen in that he did the works of his Father.


King James Bible
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

A lot of people lost the definition of what it meant for Christ to be the Son of God. Doing the works his Father created for him before the beginning of time.

Whilst we may differ on the beliefs of who are Messiah is, we know definitely he was the Son of God because he did the WILL of God the Father.
All men know God by the power and  presence of his Gracious Holy Spirit within them.


King James Bible
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Hence to belong to God the Father and Christ you must be born again by the Spirit.

John at the beginning says Christ brings the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The fact is no where does it teach you must believe Christ is God. It says you must believe in who he is "The Son of God the Messiah" whom God sent.

Now the world has fallen under the wrongful teachings.  The right teaching is God being with his Son and they being one
by the power of Gods Spirit and so we are all made one as they are one by being baptised with the Holy Spirit.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Some people are honest and when they see the truth written they know what Jesus is talking about and understand what those in Spirit knew, that we are to call Christ the Son of God and why we must call him this.

There is much to learn but the truth is for those who believe.

[floo]

YAWN!