Evolutionism.

[SamsonsRiddle]

You live in a delusion of your own mind.

The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.

You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.

Catholicism is not christianity other than in they fact they say they are. The believe they have authority over the bible. ANd oh yeah, during the period they killed all those people....the regular folks weren't allowed to have a copy of the bible in their own language. State run christianity? That's why America came to be, escaping the church of england(another fucked up fake christianity). Doesn't sound like they were serving the god of the bible to me. God always wanted everyone to know the laws and a have an intimate relationship with their creator. Constantine created a form of christianity to have an intimate relationship with controlling his population. Why do you think they worship on the wrong day? Pray to statues? Worship saints and angels and everything else that the bible clearly says not to do? Come on dude.

Dude, they spoke aramaic. Jesus spoke aramaic. Even if it was written in greek by time historians got it, it was from ARAMAIC. I mean if i speak english and someone writes it in greek, it still is a translation from english. Does that make sense?

Next thing you are going to say in genesis it says god created a greater light then he created the sun and moon and stars later. There is spiritual symbolism in there (which can be very simple and/or very complex). Light and darkness of course is good and evil (day and night) and the sun, moon, and stars mean what they mean. How do you distinguish the difference, that one thing you don't understand - the holy spirit.

 

[ThickStemz]

Catholicism is not christianity other than in they fact they say they are. The believe they have authority over the bible. ANd oh yeah, during the period they killed all those people....the regular folks weren't allowed to have a copy of the bible in their own language. State run christianity? That's why America came to be, escaping the church of england(another fucked up fake christianity). Doesn't sound like they were serving the god of the bible to me. God always wanted everyone to know the laws and a have an intimate relationship with their creator. Constantine created a form of christianity to have an intimate relationship with controlling his population. Why do you think they worship on the wrong day? Pray to statues? Worship saints and angels and everything else that the bible clearly says not to do? Come on dude.

Dude, they spoke aramaic. Jesus spoke aramaic. Even if it was written in greek by time historians got it, it was from ARAMAIC. I mean if i speak english and someone writes it in greek, it still is a translation from english. Does that make sense?

Next thing you are going to say in genesis it says god created a greater light then he created the sun and moon and stars later. There is spiritual symbolism in there (which can be very simple and/or very complex). Light and darkness of course is good and evil (day and night) and the sun, moon, and stars mean what they mean. How do you distinguish the difference, that one thing you don't understand - the holy spirit.

What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.

Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.

This state control of religion for the first thousand plus years is a feather in my cap. Well my arguments cap.

There is about an 80 year period from the time of jesus until the first surviving christian writing that survived... a gap. No writings survive.

Why?

Nothing was written?

Or the story of the faith evolved so much that the state run church destroyed everything that they could to keep that fact unknown?

If jesus was as famous as the gospels suggest there were people who's writings exist who would have written about him. We don't have them either.

It comes down to this. You admit this book, the bible, makes no sense. You've said one needs spiritual knowledge to read and understand it. Well that is not something that can be proven or disproven. I can't think of a weaker case.

 

[shorelineOG]

What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.

Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.

This state control of religion for the first thousand plus years is a feather in my cap. Well my arguments cap.

There is about an 80 year period from the time of jesus until the first surviving christian writing that survived... a gap. No writings survive.

Why?

Nothing was written?

Or the story of the faith evolved so much that the state run church destroyed everything that they could to keep that fact unknown?

If jesus was as famous as the gospels suggest there were people who's writings exist who would have written about him. We don't have them either.

It comes down to this. You admit this book, the bible, makes no sense. You've said one needs spiritual knowledge to read and understand it. Well that is not something that can be proven or disproven. I can't think of a weaker case.

What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.

Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.

This state control of religion for the first thousand plus years is a feather in my cap. Well my arguments cap.

There is about an 80 year period from the time of jesus until the first surviving christian writing that survived... a gap. No writings survive.

Why?

Nothing was written?

Or the story of the faith evolved so much that the state run church destroyed everything that they could to keep that fact unknown?

If jesus was as famous as the gospels suggest there were people who's writings exist who would have written about him. We don't have them either.

It comes down to this. You admit this book, the bible, makes no sense. You've said one needs spiritual knowledge to read and understand it. Well that is not something that can be proven or disproven. I can't think of a weaker case.

Saying the bible makes no sense is a little strong. The old testament was written thousands of years ago and it taught people safe food preparation and slaughter of livestock,taught people to rest their fields on the seventh year,rotate crops and how to handle disputes or collect debts. Science was not advanced thousands of years ago, but Jewish law is backed by science. Most common law is based on Jewish law. Not Aztec law. Not sharia law.

 

[shorelineOG]

Are you Mel Gibson? Is that the riddle?

Catholicism is not christianity other than in they fact they say they are. The believe they have authority over the bible. ANd oh yeah, during the period they killed all those people....the regular folks weren't allowed to have a copy of the bible in their own language. State run christianity? That's why America came to be, escaping the church of england(another fucked up fake christianity). Doesn't sound like they were serving the god of the bible to me. God always wanted everyone to know the laws and a have an intimate relationship with their creator. Constantine created a form of christianity to have an intimate relationship with controlling his population. Why do you think they worship on the wrong day? Pray to statues? Worship saints and angels and everything else that the bible clearly says not to do? Come on dude.

Dude, they spoke aramaic. Jesus spoke aramaic. Even if it was written in greek by time historians got it, it was from ARAMAIC. I mean if i speak english and someone writes it in greek, it still is a translation from english. Does that make sense?

Next thing you are going to say in genesis it says god created a greater light then he created the sun and moon and stars later. There is spiritual symbolism in there (which can be very simple and/or very complex). Light and darkness of course is good and evil (day and night) and the sun, moon, and stars mean what they mean. How do you distinguish the difference, that one thing you don't understand - the holy spirit.

 

[ThickStemz]

Saying the bible makes no sense is a little strong. The old testament was written thousands of years ago and it taught people safe food preparation and slaughter of livestock,taught people to rest their fields on the seventh year,rotate crops and how to handle disputes or collect debts. Science was not advanced thousands of years ago, but Jewish law is backed by science. Most common law is based on Jewish law. Not Aztec law. Not sharia law.

What the bible gets right was common knowledge to many people at the time it was written. There are diamonds in the rough, that is for sure, but overall, what other bronze age books do we hold in high regard? If not for the god question this book would be long gone.

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

What you've done there with the anti catholic bit is known as a logical fallacy, the no true Scotsman variety.

Catholics go back to long before protestants. Supposedly the first pope as Peter, upon whom christ supposedly said his church would be built.

This state control of religion for the first thousand plus years is a feather in my cap. Well my arguments cap.

There is about an 80 year period from the time of jesus until the first surviving christian writing that survived... a gap. No writings survive.

Why?

Nothing was written?

Or the story of the faith evolved so much that the state run church destroyed everything that they could to keep that fact unknown?

If jesus was as famous as the gospels suggest there were people who's writings exist who would have written about him. We don't have them either.

It comes down to this. You admit this book, the bible, makes no sense. You've said one needs spiritual knowledge to read and understand it. Well that is not something that can be proven or disproven. I can't think of a weaker case.

You must not know much about the catholic religion. The peter they claim is the peter from the bible is the wrong peter. However, they will not admit this. There is a place in acts where the apostles are out and miracles are being done through them when a man named Simon the Sorcerer (Simon is the same name as Peter) asked the apostles to give him the power to give the holy spirit to others, he asked how much it would cost. That's the peter they follow, the one who thought you could buy the holy spirit. They claim that paul visited rome, yet there is no record of that. Peter had a wife, mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, and the only one that was taught to pray to was the father - not all these other "saints" that are still laying dead in the ground.

They controlled a religion that has nothing to do with what the bible taught to do. All the apostles celebrated the sabbath, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, etc. but the catholic church outlawed the following of those god given festivals (which once again i remind you were still celebrated by the apostles AFTER christ's death and resurrection) and replaced them with easter (better known by the goddess it is based around Ishtar) and christmas (saturnalia, celebration of the rebirth of a new year and therefore a perfect time for orgies and singing naked in the streets) and every other pagan religion rebranded as "christian". How can anyone who has studied the bible really believe the catholics care about what the bible says? Even Jesus warned there would be false christs and false religion, and anyone who knows the bible can see it.

The protestants are retarded, too. Their leader didn't even believe most of the bible was supposed to be in there, yet he and all his congregant followed 90% of what the catholics did. Once again, worshiping on the wrong day (prove to me god ever said to worship on sunday), worshiping the son even thought he always pointed to the father, and many other things that make no sense. Did you not understand the part where I said nowhere in the bible does it say christians would be saved? Only believers and followers - not of the false religion that these people are doing. They think you go to heaven when you die, even though the bible teaches that you die and go into the ground. No one is resurrected until Jesus' return, check out 1 corinthians 15.

 

[ThickStemz]

You must not know much about the catholic religion. The peter they claim is the peter from the bible is the wrong peter. However, they will not admit this. There is a place in acts where the apostles are out and miracles are being done through them when a man named Simon the Sorcerer (Simon is the same name as Peter) asked the apostles to give him the power to give the holy spirit to others, he asked how much it would cost. That's the peter they follow, the one who thought you could buy the holy spirit. They claim that paul visited rome, yet there is no record of that. Peter had a wife, mary wasn't a perpetual virgin, and the only one that was taught to pray to was the father - not all these other "saints" that are still laying dead in the ground.

They controlled a religion that has nothing to do with what the bible taught to do. All the apostles celebrated the sabbath, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, etc. but the catholic church outlawed the following of those god given festivals (which once again i remind you were still celebrated by the apostles AFTER christ's death and resurrection) and replaced them with easter (better known by the goddess it is based around Ishtar) and christmas (saturnalia, celebration of the rebirth of a new year and therefore a perfect time for orgies and singing naked in the streets) and every other pagan religion rebranded as "christian". How can anyone who has studied the bible really believe the catholics care about what the bible says? Even Jesus warned there would be false christs and false religion, and anyone who knows the bible can see it.

The protestants are retarded, too. Their leader didn't even believe most of the bible was supposed to be in there, yet he and all his congregant followed 90% of what the catholics did. Once again, worshiping on the wrong day (prove to me god ever said to worship on sunday), worshiping the son even thought he always pointed to the father, and many other things that make no sense. Did you not understand the part where I said nowhere in the bible does it say christians would be saved? Only believers and followers - not of the false religion that these people are doing. They think you go to heaven when you die, even though the bible teaches that you die and go into the ground. No one is resurrected until Jesus' return, check out 1 corinthians 15.

I didn't say that's the truth I said that's what they claim, and as incomplete as the information is who are any of us to argue? It is nothing me or you can prove or disprove, each claim as a level of probability and some claims are simply or less probable than others.

Do you know where any Christian got the concept of heaven or hell? When the Jews were exiled to Babalon they got the idea from the Zoroastrians. Jews believe in God and an afterlife. They didn't have a satan or a hell until that happened.

Once Jesus came on the scene this got further refined until what we have today.

You're knowledgable on this, I am, but our knowledge is in different areas. I'm not going to say I'm more knowledable than you, I don't know. I certainly don't have any of your spiritual knowledge, as I don't think it exists.

I will say that your perspective is more correct to what I know the bible to say than the typical Christian.

 

[ThickStemz]

To the person who said that Hitler was an atheist and that is what made him so bad... then asked me if I had read Mein Komph..
I present to you page 70 of that book...

"In taking on the filthy virus of Judism I'm taking on the work of the Lord, I'm called by him to do this work."

And it was one of the few books of that type the Catholic Church did not bad...

Drop mic...

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

I didn't say that's the truth I said that's what they claim, and as incomplete as the information is who are any of us to argue? It is nothing me or you can prove or disprove, each claim as a level of probability and some claims are simply or less probable than others.

Do you know where any Christian got the concept of heaven or hell? When the Jews were exiled to Babalon they got the idea from the Zoroastrians. Jews believe in God and an afterlife. They didn't have a satan or a hell until that happened.

Once Jesus came on the scene this got further refined until what we have today.

You're knowledgable on this, I am, but our knowledge is in different areas. I'm not going to say I'm more knowledable than you, I don't know. I certainly don't have any of your spiritual knowledge, as I don't think it exists.

I will say that your perspective is more correct to what I know the bible to say than the typical Christian.

Before the babylon exile, heaven and hell were very well documented in the bible. Take for example the book of Job (which took place right around the time of Genesis 10 where you find his name) who mentions both heaven and hell (along with the grave so you can't "gotcha" me) and clearly mentions satan. Also, god wrote most of the psalms through david by the power of the holy spirit where hell is clearly mentioned several times (along with the grave).
Some of the prophets were there before the exile to babylon, such as isaiah and ezekiel and they mention satan, but with different names (king of tyrus and king of babylon).

Some Jews don't (didn't) believe in a resurrection, called Sadducees, who vehemently fought against Jesus when he mentioned the resurrection.

However, I do agree it became much more complete when Jesus revealed it to us.

Here are a few things that typical christians have never heard of and won't believe:

The 1,000 year reign - the time after Jesus returns to earth when Satan and sin are separated from earth while people who never had a chance to accept God's way will have a chance without any excuse (can't blame it on the devil). This means those who had no chance to know god through jesus will not be automatically sent to hell like most christians of today act like. Only a very small few will be given their spiritual bodies there, never having to fear death again - the ones who study every day now will teach those who never had a chance then as they reign as kings and priests. This is clearly in the bible

There is more than one antichrist. There is a spirit that dwells in the sons of disobedience who reject god's law and way called the spirit of antichrist, the unholy spirit. It says there are many antichrists, meaning those who put themselves as god in choosing what they believe is the knowledge of good and evil. These are children of satan, yes he has children, as clearly indicated by christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares. Also, Cain was satan's child, demonstrated by Adam's genealogy and also in one of the latter new testament books where it says "cain, who was of the evil one". There is much more to demonstrate this, but i haven't researched this in a few years.

There is a good mark. The mark is mentioned in the old testament as put on those who worship god on the sabbath. Seems like a pretty simple thing to follow, yet millions of christians get it wrong every week. Guess the catholic church, protestant church, and every other worldly church makes more sense to serve to them than the god of the bible. I studied the sabbath for years, both sides of the subject, and try to ask christians why they do it and have found nothing but excuses. Of course, what do you expect from people who claim to follow a god they only spend time with through some man for an hour each week (if that). Weak ass ignorant pew potatoes.

 

[ThickStemz]

That is all translation error. The concept of hell and the devil/Satan greatly evolved.

It doesn't mean the figures didn't exist. It just means their meanings changed...

In the Old Testament and in particular, prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, those who died in faith were not permitted to go into the presence of God because atonement had not yet been provided.

The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament. All 31 of those times, the word translated "hell" is the Hebrew word "sheol." While the English word "hell" has connotations as a place of punishment for the condemned, sheol does not have such connotations. Sheol simply refers to the abode of the dead in general, not particularly the place of the punishment for the wicked. In fact, sheol was divided into two compartments, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. And, more specifically, the Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world.

And these concepts are substantiated in scripture. The first indication we have that prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, the righteous dead remained in Sheol comes from 1 Samuel 28:6-20. In this passage, Saul enquires of the LORD but the LORD will not answer him. So, Saul then goes to a witch from Endor who, by Saul's request, brings up the spirit of Samuel from the dead. First, in verse 11, both Saul and the witch refer to "bringing up" a spirit. This phrase itself indicates the belief that dead spirits resided "below" or "under" and thus needed to be "brought up."

And in verse 13-14, Saul asks the witch to describe what she sees as she brings up Samuel. The witch replies saying, "I saw gods ascending out of the earth" and "an old man cometh up." Now, the Bible does not deny that this is really occurring nor does it qualify this as a trick of some sort. Instead, the Bible testifies that Samuel actually answers Saul in verse 16. Therefore, the Bible records the reality of these events, particularly that the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel resided within the earth. Thus, this Biblical account substantiates the Jewish concept of sheol as a place below the surface of the earth where the righteous dead resided.

 

[GregS]

Watch. There are many interesting concepts. Religious concepts emerge from states of mental disorder.

 

[Christianiadelic]

Interesting debate lads. Somewhat sober as well. Much appreciated.

Is Christianity especially conducive of democracy? Well, insofar as it promotes tolerance and equality.
At least, that's what I take from Francis Fukuyama's book The end of History and the Last Man. He writes:

"[...] there is no inherent conflict between religion and liberal democracy, except at the point where religion ceases to be tolerant or egalitarian. [...] Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge. The generally accepted agent for this secularization was Protestantism. By making religion a private matter between the Christian and his God, Protestantism eliminated the need for a separate class of priests, and religious intervention into politics more generally."​

Has anyone here read Mein Kampf? The third Reich and holocaust was based on science, eugenics and selective breeding. It is a scientific argument about the value of life. The value of humanity should not be based on science.

Mein Kampf is not a scientific paper, but ideological non-sense. It was not peer reviewed.
Both religion and science is held in high regard by a lot of people. Both are sources of authority and legitimacy. I find it natural for opportunists to want to associate themselves with these institutions. Let's not pretend either of these institutions are to blame.

 

[ThickStemz]

Interesting debate lads. Somewhat sober as well. Much appreciated.

Is Christianity especially conducive of democracy? Well, insofar as it promotes tolerance and equality.
At least, that's what I take from Francis Fukuyama's book The end of History and the Last Man. He writes:

"[...] there is no inherent conflict between religion and liberal democracy, except at the point where religion ceases to be tolerant or egalitarian. [...] Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge. The generally accepted agent for this secularization was Protestantism. By making religion a private matter between the Christian and his God, Protestantism eliminated the need for a separate class of priests, and religious intervention into politics more generally."​

Mein Kampf is not a scientific paper, but ideological non-sense. It was not peer reviewed.
Both religion and science is held in high regard by a lot of people. Both are sources of authority and legitimacy. I find it natural for opportunists to want to associate themselves with these institutions. Let's not pretend either of these institutions are to blame.

But religion clearly is to blame. People do not do things so much in the name of god, but because god commands them to do so in his holy book. Its quite different from science.

 

[Christianiadelic]

But religion clearly is to blame. People do not do things so much in the name of god, but because god commands them to do so in his holy book. Its quite different from science.

It definitely is. Science doesn't tell people what to do. But science is sometimes used to legitimise otherwise illegitimate concepts and ideas. I don't believe religion is inherently bad. The Christian God has a chequered past, surely, but now - following 2000 years of evolution - the Christian church has actually build an impressive capacity as a vehicle for democratic values. We should embrace this change. Though I'm atheist, I believe we will benefit from the spiritual leadership of the Christian Church. We do need to work to remove the last remnants of the totalitarian Church.

 

[ThickStemz]

It definitely is. Science doesn't tell people what to do. But science is sometimes used to legitimise otherwise illegitimate concepts and ideas. I don't believe religion is inherently bad. The Christian God has a chequered past, surely, but now - following 2000 years of evolution - the Christian church has actually build an impressive capacity as a vehicle for democratic values. We should embrace this change. Though I'm atheist, I believe we will benefit from the spiritual leadership of the Christian Church. We do need to work to remove the last remnants of the totalitarian Church.

So what you're saying is the christian church has become better the more secular values it has adopted.

I would agree. They're so good now they're hardly christian at all.

 

[Christianiadelic]

So what you're saying is the christian church has become better the more secular values it has adopted.

I would agree. They're so good now they're hardly christian at all.

Not far from it. I believe the church has become better the more democratic values it has adopted. Secular does not necessarily mean democratic. North Korea is a great example of that.

 

[ThickStemz]

Not far from it. I believe the church has become better the more democratic values it has adopted. Secular does not necessarily mean democratic. North Korea is a great example of that.

North Korea isn't secular, it has taken the religious impulse and made a god out of man. The birds sang when the great leader was born. He is still the head of the state eventhough he is long dead and his son is dead, his grandson is only head of the party. Its, as Christopher Hitchens called it, a Necrocacy.

Their god is a living man who is reincarnated in his grandson. That's a god, that's a form of theism.

 

[Christianiadelic]

North Korea isn't secular, it has taken the religious impulse and made a god out of man. The birds sang when the great leader was born. He is still the head of the state eventhough he is long dead and his son is dead, his grandson is only head of the party. Its, as Christopher Hitchens called it, a Necrocacy.

Their god is a living man who is reincarnated in his grandson. That's a god, that's a form of theism.

I understand from Wikipedia* that there's some doubt, as to whether Juche* ought to be considered a political philosphy or a religion. I don't know, so feel free to link to a better source if you feel like it. I believed North Korea to be secular due to their Marxist-Lenist-inspired ideology. But of course, Stalin too created a cult of nigh Biblical proportions around his persona.

I don't believe that the problem is religion. I don't believe the problem to be that the value of humanity is grounded in science. It's that the masses are unable to tell when religion and science is peddled by opportunists for political gain. We fear that by questioning these individuals, we either forsake our God or cast doubt on our own rationality when, in fact, the opposite is true.




*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

 

[ThickStemz]

I understand from Wikipedia* that there's some doubt, as to whether Juche* ought to be considered a political philosphy or a religion. I don't know, so feel free to link to a better source if you feel like it. I believed North Korea to be secular due to their Marxist-Lenist-inspired ideology. But of course, Stalin too created a cult of nigh Biblical proportions around his persona.

I don't believe that the problem is religion. I don't believe the problem to be that the value of humanity is grounded in science. It's that the masses are unable to tell when religion and science is peddled by opportunists for political gain. We fear that by questioning these individuals, we either forsake our God or cast doubt on our own rationality when, in fact, the opposite is true.




*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

Stalin was trained to be a preist. The Russians had just came out of a theocratic monarchy. You shouldn't be in the dictator business if you can't take advantage of that.

It's the religious impulse that gets us into trouble.

Show me a society that has fallen into despair and tyranny after embracing the values of Spinoza, Payne, Jefferson, Hume and the like.

The secular humanism vein of philosophy is our best bet for prosperity.

 

[Christianiadelic]

The Russians had just came out of a theocratic monarchy. You shouldn't be in the dictator business if you can't take advantage of that.

Almost choked on my spliff when I read this. Macchiavelli himself could not have said it better.