The Religion Thread

[Blank]

I said there are parallels

Whoa, Siddhartha did miracles. i am not familiar about this subject, could you link me to a story or two?

 

Caesar though, may be similar to Jesus in some ways, but the ways he is dissimilar are one hundred times more abundant. So the Shakespeare play about Caesar, i have always wondered how much fact it held, neh? since it is a play. according to the play Caesar's senate betrayed to death by shanks, not on a cross. they would've had to get all the nation of Rome to agree that Caesar needed to be hung in order to get him out there on a cross, since there were so many loyalist soldiers and civilians. Jesus made Himself a king?! this is new to me, since He already was king when He was born . and during His life He was not a king at all like Caesar was. Jesus foreknew His betrayer, whereas Caesar is still in disbelief as he is dying, "Et tu, Brute?"

 

ANYWAY THOUGH, what is your point? there are parallels... theoretically there can be parallels with EVERYTHING i don't get it.

[WITHTEETH]

Actaully Caesar had a note in his hands furing his autopy that warned him of this betrayal, and to stay away from the senate. So maybe he did know, Maybe he wanted to become a martyr.

 

From WITHTEETH earlier text as back up - Both are accused of making themselves kings

It didn't say Jesus made himself a kind, it said accused. Edited December 9, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Blank]

By creating the world with limitations, God limited the possible responses, thereby breaking the idea of 'free will.' After all, if he is omnipotent, to truly have free will, wouldnt everyone else need to be so as well?

i refer you to Romans chapter 9. It is your new favourite book of the Bible. it is also Reveilled's favourite too, (i enstated that one for him as well. btw i am just joking about giving people their favourite passages in the Bible, if you didn't notice, but that passage explains for what you are asking)

 

"Jesus is necessary for my worldview. if socrates was necessary for your worldview, then i would pity you, but i would still respect your views."

 

Then you understand our feelings.

i guess i do

 

Blank, you are perhaps one of the most arrogant deists I have ever met. You basically say "I can understand God, and have thus decided he is right. If you dont agree with me, you are wrong because I am right." It is a circular argument seemingly designed solely to prop up your ego: I am better than them because I have independently determined myself to be smarter and thus know what is right for them, therefore let me show them the "true path." How are you any better than the colonial Europeans who felt the need to teach the Africans through slavery, oppression, and murder?

 

If you truly followed Christianity, instead of the limited portions which appeal to your engrossed ego, you would not need to proselytize and would accept that everyone has their own journey to make. A true believer needs no one to constantly tell him he is right and good. To enforce your beliefs on others is merely to convince yourself of your virtue and superiority to the non-believers. After all, if they accept it, then it means something in there must make sense. It obviously has nothing to do with the threats of physical violence and eternal damnation. No, nothing at all. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, i have never been called the most arrogant deist one has ever known. that is... interesting. but you make me laugh since you claimed i said some things that i did not.

 

for example, i know you can't read minds because i am not propping up my ego, even though i enjoy apologetics, and i think God wants me to present Biblical beliefs to others, and that is why i keep presenting my cases. hey man, i am only claiming what i believe, to be true. others here have done the same. Why single me out?

 

"How are you any better than the colonial Europeans who felt the need to teach the Africans through slavery, oppression, and murder?"

this one deserves two lol smileys

#1 i am not enslaving anyone

#2 i am not oppressing anyone

#3 i am not murdering anyone

#4 i am not european, although i enjoy the British spelling of words. if i do it wrong somebody please tell me.

#5 i am not claiming to be "better" than anyone. i was born into the same sinful nature as everyone else, and all sins separate one from God, so my sin is as bad as your sin (although i allow that there are degrees of depravity that sins have. i.e. to kill somebody is more depraved than stealing a candybar) and we all need Jesus to reconcile us to God. Jesus is the leveler here. if you don't have Jesus, i am still not claiming to be "better", but i am saying you need to be reconciled to God since His wrath is upon you for sinning until then.

 

you said: "If you truly followed Christianity, instead of the limited portions which appeal to your engrossed ego, you would not need to proselytize and would accept that everyone has their own journey to make."

 

#1 i do accept that everyone has their own journey to make what makes you think i don't accept that? **runs around threatening to burn people with a blowtorch if they don't start taking the journey i tell them to**... yeah, i am not doing that. i can't really do that anyway since i don't know how to get to all of you and forcefully delete your "unnacceptable" "of the hearth" ways , needless to say it is opposed to my beliefs to do so.

#2 "limited portions which appeal to my engrossed ego". you have a way with words that i admire. but i am really not doing what you say i am, even though it might appear that way to you.

#3 here is an analogy that i used in the "cbs poll evolution vs. creationism" thread:

 

If you were at an airport, and a person came up to you and said,"i really think you should check where your luggage is right now, because i believe i saw it get knocked off of the converyor belt." I am saying the same thing to you by presenting my truth, except we are not in an airport, and instead of luggage we are talking about your soul.

#4 so i would be dismayed if you knew my luggage was knocked off and didn't even inform me, let alone doggedly beseech me about it.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Blank

[WITHTEETH]

I doubt both of their existances personally.

Here his life story.Buddha

 

Buddha performed some miracles. A savage serpent of great magical power sent forth fire against Buddha. Buddha turned his own body into fire and sent forth flames against the serpent. Once a tree bent down one of its branches in order to help Buddha when he wanted to come up out of the water of a tank. One day five hundred pieces of firewood split by themselves at Buddha's command. Buddha created five hundred vessels with fire burning in them for the Jatilas to warm themselves on a winter night. When there was flood, he caused the water to recede and then he walked over the water.

Edited December 9, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Blank]

I doubt both of their existances personally.

Here his life story.Buddha

 

Buddha performed some miracles. A savage serpent of great magical power sent forth fire against Buddha. Buddha turned his own body into fire and sent forth flames against the serpent. Once a tree bent down one of its branches in order to help Buddha when he wanted to come up out of the water of a tank. One day five hundred pieces of firewood split by themselves at Buddha's command. Buddha created five hundred vessels with fire burning in them for the Jatilas to warm themselves on a winter night. When there was flood, he caused the water to recede and then he walked over the water.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, thanks for the quote, i read through half the site and didn't see the miracles. By what power did Buddha do those things though? just by thinking about it or what? the site you linked me to kinda made it evident that the person who made the site was a believer in its content, but still very interesting. ideally i kind of want a totally objective site about it, with more facts present as opposed to basically a storybook. wikipedia is as good as any in that case, but i can't get over the strange feeling of being misled when i read it, since anyone can edit it

Edited December 9, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I doubt both of their existances personally.

Here his life story.Buddha

 

Buddha performed some miracles. A savage serpent of great magical power sent forth fire against Buddha. Buddha turned his own body into fire and sent forth flames against the serpent. Once a tree bent down one of its branches in order to help Buddha when he wanted to come up out of the water of a tank. One day five hundred pieces of firewood split by themselves at Buddha's command. Buddha created five hundred vessels with fire burning in them for the Jatilas to warm themselves on a winter night. When there was flood, he caused the water to recede and then he walked over the water.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is that from the theory Jesus as a Buddhist ?

[Blank]

Is that from the theory Jesus as a Buddhist ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, that is what the site did basically, it made Siddhartha into a character of Biblical proportions. Like, one of the times it said, "He traveled all over India and preached his doctrine and gospel. He became a saviour, deliverer and redeemer. " and i was wondering, what is he redeeming people for? they never needed to be redeemed. like, Jesus redeems His believers to God, since He is the propitiation for our sins, but i don't see how Sid could redeem people... so in that, the site did kind of pretend that Buddha was Jesus. (i know you were joking about Jesus as Buddhist, but i used the opportunity to write a different response)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

well, that is what the site did basically, it made Siddhartha into a character of Biblical proportions. Like, one of the times it said, "He traveled all over India and preached his doctrine and gospel. He became a saviour, deliverer and redeemer. " and i was wondering, what is he redeeming people for? they never needed to be redeemed. like, Jesus redeems His believers to God, since He is the propitiation for our sins, but i don't see how Sid could redeem people... so in that, the site did kind of pretend that Buddha was Jesus. (i know you were joking about Jesus as Buddhist, but i used the opportunity to write a different response)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Was I ?

 

Jesus didnt actually die , they drugged him with whatever was on the sponge so it looked like he was dead. Then he went back to india and died there. Theres someone actually buried there with crucifiction wounds.

 

Not suprisingly no one is allowed to dig him up and go all science on the bones.

[Atreides]

Another story I've heard was from my Hindu former landlady which said Jesus went to Nepal to mediate for some time before returning to the Middle East.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well if they dug the guy up and he turned out to be around 2000 years old it would put a bit of a dent in the whole divine accension thing.

 

I guess the christian verison won because they killed anyone who disagreed

[Blank]

Was I ?

 

Jesus didnt actually die , they drugged him with whatever was on the sponge so it looked like he was dead. Then he went back to india and died there. Theres someone actually buried there with crucifiction wounds.

 

Not suprisingly no one is allowed to dig him up and go all science on the bones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Was I?"

yes

 

i haven't had wine vinegar ever (which is what was on the sponge), so i don't know how effective it's duping properties are.

 

John 19:31-35

"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."

 

So if Jesus had a spear driven through his side, he couldn't live even if they had drugged him up well. and i hope nobody goes "all science" on anybody's bones. that's just disturbing...

 

"hey, i have a deceased relative at the cemetary. lets dig them up and go all science on 'em"

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

i haven't had wine vinegar ever (which is what was on the sponge), so i don't know how effective it's duping properties are.

 

John 19:31-35

"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."

 

So if Jesus had a spear driven through his side, he couldn't live even if they had drugged him up well. and i hope nobody goes "all science" on anybody's bones. that's just disturbing...

 

"hey, i have a deceased relative at the cemetary. lets dig them up and go all science on 'em"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See your taking the word of whoever wrote it rather than looking for an explanation. The sponge being drugged is an explanation. Had they not done so they were probably quite aware of the roman practice of breaking the legs so that the person suffocated faster.

 

All that proves is he hadnt been dead very long, or wasnt dead at all. Have you seen a roman spear ? It's not that long and its point dosnt penertrate far. Thrusting a spear upwards dosnt give you a great deal of force behind the blow since you have no weight behind it like when you trust down. In normal use the spear is thrown or the momentum of the victim is used so that they impale themselves.

 

I know the spear anyway or at least what people claim is the spear and it dates from a much later time. Hitler believed in it though and the myth that it granted invincibility.

 

If my deceased relative was being used as an excuse for killing people on a daily basis I'd be all for digging them up. Anyone interested in the truth would be too.

Edited December 9, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Blank]

See your taking the word of whoever wrote it rather than looking for an explanation. The sponge being drugged is an explanation. Had they not done so they were probably quite aware of the roman practice of breaking the legs so that the person suffocated faster.

and you are too by saying that he was drugged, that he existed, and that they didn't break his bones

 

All that proves is he hadnt been dead very long, or wasnt dead at all. Have you seen a roman spear ? It's not that long and its point dosnt penertrate far.

so you are basically saying that a roman spear can't penetrate and that as a weapon it is the most useless thing anyone has ever made since it won't even hurt the guy in battle, but just annoy him into a state of angry-berserker?

 

If my deceased relative was being used as an excuse for killing people on a daily basis I'd be all for digging them up. Anyone interested in the truth would be too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i would too, but i was just joking anyway. i meant like, a random person being dug up and having somebody go all science on them. the "all science" part sounds so impersonal, and it made me laugh.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

and you are too by saying that he was drugged, that he existed, and that they didn't break his bones

 

so you are basically saying that a roman spear can't penetrate and that as a weapon it is the most useless thing anyone has ever made since it won't even hurt the guy in battle, but just annoy him into a state of angry-berserker?

 

i would too, but i was just joking anyway. i meant like, a random person being dug up and having somebody go all science on them. the "all science" part sounds so impersonal, and it made me laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I'm looking for explanations thats not the same thing your looking to protect your ideology I'm not. Did some guy called Jesus exist ? Maybe, the name crops up historically. However thats a very different thing to saying that Jesus was god incarnate which there is no evidence for.

 

I explained how a spear works but since you cant seem to comprehend it heres a little experiment you can try.

Stab down with a knife. Note the ammount of force. Now stab up with the knife above your head note how much less force there is. Use a spear if you have one, but a knifes more likely.

 

Science is supposed to be impersonal.

[Baley]

[Vashanti]

that is why the original hebrew word's translation makes no sense when looking at the context. Like, matthew 1:18-19, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want the truth, then you'll need to research, take some classes, study up, talk to scholars of ancient texts and even a rabbi or cantor or three. There are even new scientific discoveries still being made from ancient texts found in the Dead Sea. You could even try to find the first translations -- into Ancient Greek from Hebrew -- and study those (although that may or may not have linguistic problems, as I describe below).

 

Language is an amazing thing, but there are many linguistic differences between languages and language families. If you don't think something makes sense in one modern version's attempted translation of a word or passage, try using other translations, or better yet, learn what the original words mean in their original linguistic context. It's the only way to be sure. It's impossible to literally translate a phrase or sentence or passage over from such varied languages as Hebrew to English without some things being lost in the process.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Vashanti

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I bet a lot of women who slept around would love to use that excuse.

[Lucius]

Thor will smack y'all gods silly.

[Blank]

If you want the truth, then you'll need to research, take some classes, study up, talk to scholars of ancient texts and even a rabbi or cantor or three.  There are even new scientific discoveries still being made from ancient texts found in the Dead Sea.  You could even try to find the first translations -- into Ancient Greek from Hebrew -- and study those (although that may or may not have linguistic problems, as I describe below).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

 

i think i might do that

 

but Mary was still a virgin, since there are two passages in in different books of the Bible that talk about it and all the context points to her being a virgin. (Luke 1:26-37, Matthew 1:18-19)

[Judge Hades]

I betcha that after Jesus was born she didn't stay a virgin for long.

[Gabrielle]

I betcha that after Jesus was born she didn't stay a virgin for long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL

 

More crap. How can she be a virgin when she was pregnant?

[Lucius]

It's like having an orgasm, only not.

[julianw]

It's not any harder for one to be a virgin and pregnant than to walk on water.

[Dark Moth]

I betcha that after Jesus was born she didn't stay a virgin for long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL

 

More crap. How can she be a virgin when she was pregnant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hence, the leap of faith.

[Judge Hades]

There is taking a leap of faith and then there is taking a leap off the Grand Canyon.