Christian God theme debunked.

Yes, that is very true MB.

But it is very subjective. Because your testimony is based on what you have experienced. I have related a few stories that I have experienced in this thread. At an objective level, there is no reason to defend them. I experienced them and it is what it is. However, they are things that are fairly alien to Christian experience, and there are those, such as my stepdaughters that would immediately jump to the conclusion that 'it is of the devil.' Many people who have never experienced such things would insist that it never happened, or try to find another explanation for it, and say it was a coincidence. If I felt compelled to make them understand then I would need to defend it for them.

However if one is not open to, or ready for the truth, then you won't see it as truth. Before I could be open to the things that happen to me now, there were a lot of other things not quite as spectacular that happened to me that were pretty amazing in themselves, but each time such a thing would happen the rational side of my mind would go about trying to find a rational explanation for it. I tried to believe what had happened, but it didn't make sense that the physical world could really work that way. You could say that I was defending my perceived understanding that fit Newtonian physics. But my other side was trying to defend what happened for what it was---a synchronicity. These synchronicities became more amazing until one night there was something so irrational yet so real that I had no way to discredit it. But my mind worked on it for weeks, maybe months trying to make rational sense out of it. But even after accepting that it did happen, still after a few years, when I did my first vision quest, it was hard for me to still completely accept what was happening to me. This process was necessary to me to prepare me for the truth I now experience.

After my first few vision quests, I joined a new lodge community where I was pretty much the only white guy, and they were more deeply connected to the Rez, all of their vision quests were in Bear Butte---which is the traditional place where the Lakota have always had their vision quests. At first it was accepted, in fact I was invited to go there for hanblechiya (Vision Quest). But then some of the people from the Rez who didn't know me that well, suggested that I just go up there and support the first year. Some people in the community thought that they were being racist. If that was true, I would have fully understood their feelings and have accepted it. I never asked to go to Bear Butte because there is a large sentiment that it is the 'one' place the Lakota still have to call their own for ceremony. There are plenty of mountains everywhere for white people to go sit on. And I understand that. But that is not at all what they meant. It was not a racist thing. To support means that I still participate in ceremony, I am still playing an important and very spiritual role. His point was that most White Men are not ready for such things. Most of the Indians on the Red Road were born into that culture, and from an early age have been taught that spirit is all around and ready to communicate directly, and have experienced it time and again. Even some of the Progressives on the Rez, raised as Christians trying to fit into white society are not ready for Bear Butte. If you are not ready for it, you may go to Bear Butte and waste your time and your health for nothing. Or, much worse, what these people worried about, you may go up and have a nervous break down. You could have, what amounts to a bum trip. You could be frightened over things you do not understand.

Here is a good example, In one of the meetings before hanblechiya the Medicine Man was telling the people going up for the first time that their altar (the space they are sitting in, which is surrounded by tobacco ties) will keep them safe, as will the chanunpa, the sacred pipe. You can leave your altar to go to the bathroom, but for nothing else. It is your place no matter what happens. And if you feel threatened you just hold up your chanunpa at the threat. He then told the story of someone he put up on the hill one time. One night this person was sitting and praying---and all of a sudden he heard this rushing noise. It got louder and louder. He looked up the hill trying to figure out what it was. It got louder and louder, then he saw that it was a giant boulder and it was heading right for him. He knew he couldn't leave his altar, and that his chanunpa was to protect him. But it was coming right for him. He immediately picked up his chanunpa, pointed it at the oncoming boulder, closed his eyes, cringed, and called out for the Great Spirit just as it was about to hit him head on. Suddenly the noise stopped. He looked up and the boulder was gone, but there was a medicine wheel sitting right in front of him---made of little stones. Fortunately most people do not have scary things like that (and a lot of people pray that they don't see such things---and I think their prayers are always answered). But things do happen. (I also think there are white people that want things like that to happen just to prove that it is real---but they aren't ready, and can't handle it when it does).

But back to your point. There are also those that are just learning of their own subjective 'truth.' They need to defend it until they really understand it as truth, or until they figure out all the ins and outs of it.

Finally there are those who have their own self doubts. They want to believe, but it isn't a truth to them. In fact their disbelief tends to be repressed into their shadow. They are the ones that become the most defensive. They have yet to see the truth, even if it is right in front of them (though their own truth may not be what they think it is).

These last cases in particular are where there is fragility.

(Now for a little fun. The academic portion of this is all true in regards to a distant time, but women, all the rest I say in jest: )

By the way----did you guys know that women cannot really give a testimony? Yep---that's right. And its not sexist because they are women. ...well yes, it actually is. The word testimony comes from the Ancient Greek root for testes. When you give, or make, a testimony, you are literally swearing that what you are saying, promising, or doing is absolutely true by pledging your testicles as collateral. (Actually if I was at home I would check to see if it is Greek or Latin----I seem to recall it being Greek, but it does sound Latin, then again it could be both). A testimony in ancient times was given under the threat of castration. Now when a female gives a testimony----I would like to know by whose testicles is she pledging? I absolutely forbid my wife to give a testimony.

They could give a matrimony---but that is Latin. ...Oh wait, that is for something else----and now you see how significant that is. Men----in a divorce, especially if it is her fault, you should rightfully demand what is rightfully yours. The problem I have found is that after a period of a few years, you really don't want them anymore. I had to throw my ex-wife's away after a few years---it reeked of formaldehyde and was just getting harder and harder to use.

SO I guess the appropriate thing is to use the Ancient Greek root and say: gynemony. So the next time you are in church, or in court, or anywhere else and a woman stands up to give a testimony----stop her right there! Stand up and say, "Stop that woman!! She can't give a testimony. I insist that she only give a gynemony!!"

And be prepared for when a guy offers to give a testimony. Always carry a big knife. When it happens stand up again and say, "Wait--before his testimony, I want to make sure we are clear on what he is doing." Pull out your big knife and then continue, "I am prepared with the knife if this testimony turns out to not be true. Who has the chopping block?"

 

No I am not saying the idea is new, or new to you, I was just making a point. And again---like I said, I enjoy the shock value from time to time too.

But when it comes to belief you can often come to the gunfight with a gun (rather than a knife) and it makes no difference. Truth is always very subjective.

God is Dead!!! Oh darn---that one is already taken...

 

I thought Tikoo said something to this effect in a very good way:

 

I thought so too. He is like john who lost his head.

 

God is alive and well despite attempts to assign properties to her.

 

That she is. But I do have my knife in case you want to 'testify' to that.

 

Yes, I do want to testify to that. Keep in mind that my man in the bushes has the bead of his rifle on you. Times have changed, my friend. Bringing a knife to a gun fight is not an effective maneuver.

 

Fine.
Within the cultural context of the area and time, yes, blood sacrifice was needed in order to better convey the "message" to the peoples of that time and culture. You are forgetting that while sacrifices and such took place, they were symbolic acts for the benefit of the people, not God.
I believe I pointed that out previously.
Did some "voodoo magic" happen that set the sin counter back to zero, I don't know and neither do you quite frankly. If it did, it won't anymore because the rules of the game changed with the advent of the Messiah, according the the teachings of Christianity.

as thedope would say, it was due to the hardness of their hearts, not any need or desire on God's part.
God tailored the message for the audience.
Now does it still hold the same significance and all today, not so much, but the symbolism of what it represents is still valid for those who ascribe to that belief system.

Concerning the resurrection question, I already sufficiently answered that question previously. You stated that the resurrection was NOT needed to give credibility to Jesus teachings. The scriptures I posted very plainly and clearly show that Jesus specifically stated that that would be the only real validation for what he claimed. Every translation I have read conveys the exact same message.
This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, the words mean what they mean.
Now if you then want to go on a tangent with assumptions about what may or may not have been said in secret, or call into question the veracity of the entire Bible, fine have at it, but I already answered the question you posed ACCORDING TO THE RECORD COMMONLY AVAILABLE TO US.

Now about the need for forgiveness, judgement and punishment, no I most likely do not agree with your take on it, but neither do I personally subscribe to the commonly accepted notion of those ideas.

To me sin is not specific actions or lack thereof, it is more a condition, humans are slightly "off center" spiritually. Therefore it isn't a question of judgement and punishment, but rather re-alignment and correction. But that "off-centeredness" is also greatly due to our incomplete perception and misapprehension of reality and our true selves.
That is due in part because of the development of the frontal cortex and the resulting advent of self awareness, a sense of ego and the concept of right/wrong, but that's fodder for another thread.

I don't accept the common concept of Hell. It really isn't found in the Bible except as a metaphor Jesus had made. Personally, the verdict isn't in yet.

Remember, I stated that my beliefs are not constricted or constrained by the Bible, yet can fully envelope it's message and teachings on many facets and levels.
So why you keep trying to stuff me into that little box Storch?

 

when you are sinless , shall you be an idealist ? no .
sinless = harmlessness and idealism = imaginary . harmlessness
cannot be illusion . feel it .

this brings to mind the propaganda of nice authoritarians , the
deceivers . they arm-twist . o !!!! they'll go insane and zero .

how to be sinless ? it just happens . love . imagination becomes
the colors of universal... an art that inspires good instinct . go
forth and do free jazz . eh? just let me sit at your fire in peace .
i might play a little drum is all , at first a heartbeat , and then ...
two , for mother and child .

 

Sure . . .

 

NG,

So, to the question of the cucifixion and the spilling of blood being necessary in order for God to forgive humans, your position is that blood sacrifices were needed to better convey the "message" to the people of that time and culture. OK, what "message" are you referring to?
You follow that with the assertion that they were symbolic acts for the benefit of the poeple and not God. How did the act of blood sacrifice benefit the people?

To the idea that some "voodoo magic" would set the sin-counter back to zero when blood sacrifice was performed, you say that you don't know. This answer seems to fly right in the face of your previous answer where you stated that they were symbolic acts for the benefit of the people and not God. It also flies in the face of your comment that it was due to the hardness of thier hearts, and not to any need or desire on God's part. Do you see that you begin by saying that you don't know, but end with saying that it was a symbolic act and not based on any need or desire on God's part. You gave two answers. Which one do you hold more to?

As to the resurrection question, your answer is that, according to scriptures, it was necessary to the credibility of the teachings of Jesus. Fair enough. However, I disagree that it was necessary on the grounds that the teachings stand well enough on their own without any special event to give them more punch. Razzle dazzle adds nothing to truth, and in fact detracts from it. But that's just my opinion.

Concerning the question of whether humans were ever in need of forgiveness since judgement and punishment are human ideals that appeal to the ego, and not the essential self, we agree, even though you say that you most likely do not agree. You also state that you do not subscribe to the commonly accepted notion of those ideas. What commonly accepted notions would those be, and where did they come from?

When it comes to Hell, you said that it really isn't found in the Bible except as a metaphor that Jesus made, and so the jury is still out on that issue. I beg to differ . . .

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to everlasting life.

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands.

Matthew 13:41–42
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will remove from his Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There are many other references to Hell that you are apparently unaware of.

__________________________________

I'm not trying to stuff you into any box, NG. I recall you accusing others of "buffet christianity" because of their acceptance of some parts of the text, and their rejection of other parts. I just thought I would point out to you that perhaps your doubt concerning Hell is the part of that buffet that you are partaking of.

 

Well Storch I have already answered your questions to my satisfaction, so not going to again. Maybe if you go back and read it again, you will see I answered you adequately.
If you do not understand what I have responded, I honestly don't know how to help you better comprehend it. It seemed pretty clear to me.

Concerning Hell and the "buffet religion" I can see your point and understand how you come to that conclusion, so let me clarify my position.
The points of contention that I was referring to were questions of the divinity of Jesus and the resurrection, both of which are really the only core tenants on which the faith is based. All else is window dressing. If you go through church history you will find, as I stated, that those two points have been at the center of pretty much every division and splintering of sects within Christianity to differing degrees.

Those were the aspects I was referring to.
If you go back and double check, you will find those are the points about which I made those comments.

My contention from the beginning was about your misconstruing what is written in the Bible, not your personal belief system. You continued to pressure me so I offered up a "rough draft" of what I personally believe, but not in order to get caught up in a pages and pages long back and forth over personal beliefs.
If that's what you want, see thedope, he loves that shit

So I'll see you around in another thread. :mickey:

 

This is very interesting. Thank you. I would agree with the indians that the Spirit/God is all around and you can communicate directly.

 

NG, can you provide any scripture that supports the idea that Jesus's ressurection was different in nature from anyone else's?

 

In my opinion, the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection are not something against which the rest of the story is but window dressing. His teachings was the thing. His virgin birth and resurrection are, as I have said earlier, only the frame of the picture--window dressing. This is not to say that I believe these things. Furthermore, to hold those things up as the core tenets upon which the whole of the christian faith rests and depends is to miss the point entirely.

NG,

The thing with the Hell issue is that you did say that it really isn't found in the Bible except as a metaphor Jesus had made. I merely showed you that that was incorrect, and could in fact be found in many places. That's why I threw the "christianity buffet" thing back at you. You thought that the jury is still out on that, when in fact the verdict has always been in . . . according to the Bible.

 

if you mean in the sense of actual physical resurrection;

Luke 24:36-43
Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.[f] 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.[g] 43And He took it and ate in their presence.

John 20:24-27
Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”


Acts 2:29-31

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[a] 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.

there's a few

 

Yes, it is simply your opinion, but sorry, the actual words in the book don't support your opinion.
If you don't agree with that, then I suggest you please go read the New Testament or something, because everything I have said is rather plainly laid out in the writings and not open to as much wiggle room as you think.

Whether you believe it or agree with it is absolutely irrelevant, what is relevant is once again you fail at reading comprehension if you actually think your opinions are supported by what is written in the Bible.

Ya see the thing is when we are discussing something that is available for objective study and scrutiny and we have a thing such as a common language so that we can all read the same book and shit, opinion doesn't mean anything when discussing the actual content of the book in question.

I'm talking about the actual words written on the page to convey ideas.
Those words do not support your opinions about them.
I have clearly demonstrated that time and again.

In my experience the biggest obstacle to a person understanding the Bible is their own bias, prejudice and preconceived ideas about what is recorded within it's pages, yet few actually know what is contained within, or try to squeeze and massage it to fit into their compartment that they have constructed for it prior to ever even reading it.

It just doesn't work that way, either accept it, or disregard it.
I mean seriously, if it is all bullshit and myth, why are you so concerned about it and want to attempt to "debunk" it?

I don't buy into the whole pantheon of Gods in Hinduism, but I'm not going out of my way to "debunk" it and I'm not wasting my time posting purposely inflammatory posts in that section of the forums and calling Hindus idiots and sheep, so why do you feel the need to do so to Christians???

Seriously, maybe you should go have a look in the mirror.

 

Some Summa from St Thomas Aquinas is a good remedy to these "new" debunkings...

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article3

PS: God is not a being; some sort of super-being amongst every other being.

 

I acknowledge that you feel as though the OT supports your lord's claim to divinity, this belief is not in question, or not from my understanding at least. Where we differ would undoubtedly lay within interpretation. Let us start with your kinsman redeemer laws. Having read them I can fully understand your Christianized interpretation and how they seem to flow within the same stream as Jesus. However I think perhaps if we consider two far older understandings we can come to a different interpretation.

1st: According to Jewish tradition and interpretation there is no original sin which means that the kinsman redeemer laws as applied to Jesus have no validity in the traditional understanding of the Tanakh.
2nd: All laws that were applied in the Tanakh only apply to Jews, unless specifically stated otherwise. Because of this the kinsman redeemer laws cannot be construed to benefit Gentiles according to Jewish understanding.

Also I feel I must add that in order for Jesus to have fulfilled the kinsman redeemer laws he had to have been sinless. While the Catholicized gospels paint such a picture of Jesus not all gospels do. When Constantine and his fellows on the Nicene council put the current rendering of the bible together they chose which texts were to find their way into it and which were not. Yet they also chose the accounts of Jesus from historically inaccurate books. Why are they considered historically inaccurate? Let us see......

Each of the gospel texts has been carbon dated. Now I understand that not all people agree on the validity of carbon dating but still it is worth some mention. If you or any other wishes to refute it feel free.
Matthew and Luke: 60-70 AD
Mark: 60-65 AD
John: 70-90 AD
Now these dates may seem meaningless when taken within only their own context but let us look at the average lifespan of a person around Jesus' time.
40's-50's normal
60's-70's highly unlikely
70 and up almost unheard of.
If we take the belief that the cannon gospels were almost all written by followers of Christ we must then take a look at their ages at the time of writing. It would be acceptable to assume that most of Jesus' followers were in their late teens to early twenties during the time of his teaching. If we take this average age and add the date of Jesus' crucifixion that would put them into their late teens or early twenties. Now lets see what age they would be at the time of writing.
Let us say that Matthew was 18 when Jesus died now add another 35 years to that age (taking the happy medium) and we get his age at the time of writing;
53 give or take a few years. While this does not suggest that his writing the gospel prescribed to him is impossible it is still near improbable.
Mark would also fall into this age group so we'll let his gospel go.
Luke if you follow the hints in scripture was Paul's personal physician. Therefore he never actually knew Jesus. That discredits his gospel as even being a possibility of accurate knowledge.
What about John? Well let's say that he was 18 as well and then add 43 years (once again a happy medium) and we come out to around 61 years of age. Near impossible that John lived that long during those times.
I acknowledge that these dates do not completely rule out the possibility of these men writing what they did. They do however make it highly unlikely that the proclaimed writers were the true writers. Add to this discrepancies such as the resurrection story in Mark being added after the book itself was written and we start to have even more reason to question validity.
Now that that is done I must ask have you heard of the Gnostic gospels? If not please look them up. Compare their dating to those of the cannon gospels and read a bit about what they say. You may then see why I claim that Jesus was not as pure as the cannon would have us believe. However I do not claim that this invalidates the teachings of Christ.
As to what I feel you have been espousing in reference to opinion? The idea that the bible is a reliable source of fact. Forgive me if I am wrong but it would seem (due to your wording) that you would expect those of us who do not believe to accept the bible as a source for fact. When taken into context, as you can see, this is a questionable stance. Also even if we were to accept the bible as a source of historical reference we must ask about the bias of it's writers. Yes history is often biased and that is why very little of it can be taken as infallible truth. If you seek context of the writing I have also given that in the understanding of Jewish teaching above.

I for one do not intend to suggest that Christian belief is not valuable. I cherish the teachings of your deity. My issue is when Christians seem to think that their way is the only correct way.

Biblical accuracy is the only question that I use when scrutinizing your ideals.

While those are all good points toward the validity of Jesus according to Christian interpretation please allow me to show you the opposite side of the coin. To do so we must ask the question what is the Messiah?

In the original Hebrew we find messiah to be mashiach which means anointed. By this definition all Jewish priests were considered messiahs. All priests were anointed by oil when brought into the service of God. Make sense? Next we must look at the belief that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy.
The prophets say that the messiah will
Build the third temple (Ezekiel 37: 26-28)
Gather all Jews back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6)
Usher in a world of peace and end all hatred, suffering, oppression and disease {Isaiah 2:4)
Spread the universal knowledge of one God (Zechariah 14: 9)
Jesus did not historically fulfill any of these prophecies. Now some Christians say that he will in the second coming but please remember that there is no second coming concept in the original prophecies. The messiah was supposed to fulfill all of these when he came, period.
Now let us look at Jesus' personal qualifications.
According to messianic prophecy the messiah will be born of normal parents thereby not being a demigod. Also he must be descended from the line of David. Since Jesus is said to be a virgin birth he had no physical father and therefore cannot be descended from any line let alone David's. According to prophecy the messiah will bring complete Torah acceptance and any man who tries to change the Torah teachings is a false prophet. (Deuteronomy 13: 1-4) Ask yourself what did Jesus do regarding the laws of the Torah?
The virgin birth is a mistranslation. The word used to mean virgin is alma in Hebrew which means young woman not virgin.
The word gouged when referring to crucifixion is originally translated as like a lion. Thus mistranslation once again creates the idea that the messiah must be crucified. He does not.
The suffering servant prophecy in Isaiah 53 did not originally refer to a single man but the entire nation of Israel. Another mistranslation.
I could go on but I feel as though this is enough food for thought.

 

NG,

I'm not making claims regarding what is and what is not written in the Bible. So, stop trying to turn this into that. I am debunking the ideas put forth in it. I've made that clear. For instance, I've pointed out that the idea of Hell is nonsensical. You've said that the jury is still out on that issue. And then as if to prove that you really haven't read the Bible--or that if you did, a lot of it didn't stick--you say that Hell isn't really found in the Bible, when in fact, it's mentioned lots of times, and I had to show you. So, now that I've shown you that it is written about in the Bible, are you going to accept it, or are you going to pick and choose what's comfortable for you?

________________________________

And you never did respond to these:

So, to the question of the cucifixion and the spilling of blood being necessary in order for God to forgive humans, your position is that blood sacrifices were needed to better convey the "message" to the people of that time and culture. OK, what "message" are you referring to?
You follow that with the assertion that they were symbolic acts for the benefit of the poeple and not God. How did the act of blood sacrifice benefit the people?

To the idea that some "voodoo magic" would set the sin-counter back to zero when blood sacrifice was performed, you say that you don't know. This answer seems to fly right in the face of your previous answer where you stated that they were symbolic acts for the benefit of the people and not God. It also flies in the face of your comment that it was due to the hardness of thier hearts, and not to any need or desire on God's part. Do you see that you begin by saying that you don't know, but end with saying that it was a symbolic act and not based on any need or desire on God's part. You gave two answers. Which one do you hold more to?

As to the resurrection question, your answer is that, according to scriptures, it was necessary to the credibility of the teachings of Jesus. Fair enough. However, I disagree that it was necessary on the grounds that the teachings stand well enough on their own without any special event to give them more punch. Razzle dazzle adds nothing to truth, and in fact detracts from it. But that's just my opinion.

Concerning the question of whether humans were ever in need of forgiveness since judgement and punishment are human ideals that appeal to the ego, and not the essential self, we agree, even though you say that you most likely do not agree. You also state that you do not subscribe to the commonly accepted notion of those ideas. What commonly accepted notions would those be, and where did they come from?

Please respond to this.