Religion...past...present...future...

The place for any Religious and/or Philosophical discussions, treatise, absolutions, ramblings, Aliens, UFO's, space exploration, mystical bullshit, astronomy, astrology, etc...
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Religion...past...present...future...

Post: # 115944Post Egaladeist
Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:29 pm

Virtually every religion on earth has a present or a past that is worth condemning it for and abolishing it altogether...
eg. the pedos in the Catholic Church...is enough in itself to tear it down...

probably the only religion that has even come close to being a beacon of light in the darkness and has throughout history avoided much of the turmoil other churches have wallowed in is Buddhism...more specifically Theravada Buddhism ( as there are as many versions of Buddhism as there are of Christianity )...

If we base our perceptions and criticism of a religion/cult/sect upon their actions then we should all be Buddhists.

If we base our critique and willingness to join and make a religion accountable for it's actions...

we would all be Buddhists.

Or Atheists.

Discuss...

We excuse Christianity of the reality of it's present and past by saying it is not Jesus' fault...it's the fault of his church...

corruption, infighting, and power struggles have been a part of the Christian Church since it's inception...since the very day the foundation was laid...since even before the days of Irenaeus ( circa 130-200 )...

so when was it ever his Church?

Discuss...


www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

User avatar
cgkanchi
Supertazzerfraggerlistic
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:03 am

Post: # 115945Post cgkanchi
Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:01 pm

Meh, those and other reasons are why I decided long ago that I was an atheist.
Buy the Snakes of India book, support research and education (sorry website has been discontinued)
My blog (shameless plug, I know): http://biology000.blogspot.com

User avatar
Panama Red
I come Unseen
Posts: 5469
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:14 am

Post: # 115946Post Panama Red
Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:08 pm

We should all ascribe to being a Buddhist, I find no fault with their lives or teachings, if anything they are more benevolent then the current crop of religions.

I don't think Buddhism and Atheism can be compared as equals, as Atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or religions of any sort and yet Buddhists have a faith in their teachings and the humility of man..and believe in the true nature of reality....

As for the church being that of Jesus Christ, you may have to pass that on to the original Godfathers..I think the original idea of Christianity got co-opted at some point and it became a clearing house for relatives of the Papacy..... 8)
Image

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Post: # 116193Post Egaladeist
Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:22 am

The Historical Jesus...

For a man...who had 100's if not 1000's of people following him around awaiting a miracle...eg. the story of 2 fishes and 5 loaves that fed 5000...who raised the dead, walked on water, and healed the sick...

who was paraded around as a spectacle, tortured, crucified...and rose from the dead...

it is strange that there isn't one non-partisan document or manuscript of the era...not one mention of any of this anywhere from any independent non-partisan source...from any culture, kingdom, living in that area...

Romans would have been fascinated by a miracle-man...they loved the supernatural...to be entertained...strangely, they seemed to have missed reporting this event in any of their records even though they were presumed, and stated as being, a large part of it...

in fact...Marcus Aurelius who was accused of the persecution of Christians and in very fact wrote about it...mentions that he was a reluctant participant...yet never mentions Jesus at all...

there is one seemingly out of place mention in the works of Josephus, the Historian of the Jews at the time...but that mention has long been considered an interpolation and not written by Josephus himself.

OK...so you have to have a certain amount of faith to believe in god...to a degree I can see the point...

and as a christian you have to have a certain degree of faith to believe in the messianic nature of Jesus...to a degree I can even see this point...

but what exactly is the point in making it difficult to even prove his existence...this serves no purpose...

even substantial proof that Jesus existed as a historical personage would not detract from needing to have faith in his messianic nature...

even several independent sources of miracles being performed would not in themselves prove his messianic nature...

even with proof of his existence and proof of miracles one would still need faith to believe he was a messiah...

outside of partisan sources...there is no evidence of Jesus ever existing...ever preforming miracles...ever being persecuted or crucified...

Herod...a major player...left no record of any such thing ever existing...neither did Pilate...nor any of their historians or record keepers...

John the Baptist is mentioned frequently...but no mention of a Jesus...

for a man who created such a stir in the old world...

you would think that there would exist at least a shred...a crumb...of independent non-partisan proof that he even existed...

and not just a construct of a religious or political movement of the time, during the time there were several such movements. After all...what better way of motivating a movement than to create a charismatic messianic leader to follow...especially during a time of occupation when the people are looking specifically for someone to lead them.
www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

Elsparrow
In with the out crowd
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 9:43 pm

Post: # 116195Post Elsparrow
Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:52 am

I read the Da Vinci code last month, and if it was fact, it would explain a whole lot about Christianity.

Tbh, Buddhism wouldn't work for me as you can't drink alcohol.

If I celebrated anything I'd likely be a pagan. I'm very much a believer in equality between male and female and good and bad, which is essentially paganism.
Image

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Post: # 116206Post Egaladeist
Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:10 pm

www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Post: # 116227Post Harbinger
Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:30 am

Buddhism is something I know a great deal about.l I was a practitioner before going Atheist and have also attended many seminars held by ascetics.

Buddhists are so stable because they cannot comment, criticize, or critique another's faith or religion. Also, Buddhists believe that there is no singular path to enlightenment so long as it promotes positive energy and denies negative energy. The universe is a product of not just action but thoughts and feelings. How these shape the degree of positive/negative energy is all that matters. The methods are immaterial.

While not quite recognized because of being unable to fully comment, Jesus would be considered to be quite high on the ladder of enlightenment if not having achieved Buddha. The same applies to other comparable figures.

Buddhists also don't technically proselytize, so between that and what I've mentioned here, there is really no room for conflict at all.
"I am never wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken."

User avatar
James
I do stuff
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post: # 117137Post James
Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Ok, I have a question regarding this, and it's one that's been bugging me for some time:

If an "outside source" claimed witness of Jesus, would they not immediately be deemed partisan as a result and thus cited as biased?

That's one concept that has always confused me. If someone dug up new documentation of someone having seen Jesus, it would likely be regarded a new addition to religious text and thrown in with everything else, leaving us back at square one with "why are there no nonpartisan documents?"

If something claims Jesus existed, it's immediately deemed partisan. Yet we want an unpartisan document of Jesus' existence, which by its own definition is impossible.

If I have somehow led myself into an endless loop of circular reason that can be broken, please enlighten me a bit...Seriously, every time I approach this question it screws with my head.
aka AO's AngelicKnight
The forums are finally back!
http://www.jameswebsite.net

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Post: # 117138Post Egaladeist
Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:27 pm

Yet we want an unpartisan document of Jesus' existence, which by its own definition is impossible.
Not true...sorry James...but there are many non-partisan mentions of ' the Buddha ' ...eg. a Roman document could mention Jesus without being partisan...a Jewish document written by another Rabbi or Scribe can be non-partisan recognition...or an Egyptian document as that is where he was claimed to have been raised and went to school...

eg. " a man named Jesus came to our town and claimed he was the Messiah " or " I went to school with Jesus "

even if it was untrue...

yet only partisan mentions of him even exist..from the time and 100's of years after.

Even in the few cases of manuscripts/writings that exist regarding the persecution of the Christians ( the one written by Marcus Aurelius himself being the most prominent ) Jesus is never mentioned...the Christians are never referenced as dying for anyone called Jesus.

Amazingly...the greatest non-partisan reference to Jesus' existence comes approximately 600 years later during the writing of the Quran.
www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

User avatar
Morganlefay
I've posted HOW many
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:36 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Avalon Canada

Post: # 117142Post Morganlefay
Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:35 pm

I believe in Nature as an entity in itself....and man is a small part of that

The Who-Naked Eye

"The stars are all connected to the brain"

MLF
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Post: # 117144Post Egaladeist
Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:44 pm

All things are differentiations of the same thing.
www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

User avatar
James
I do stuff
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post: # 117151Post James
Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:00 pm

Not true...sorry James...but there are many non-partisan mentions of ' the Buddha ' ...eg. a Roman document could mention Jesus without being partisan...
Not sure why you're apologizing there Eg. In any case, that's more of the answer I was hoping someone could clarify for me.

Ok, so that leads to Question #2 for me: Is it so odd that documents of an ancient civilization are missing? Is it possible, and if so, is it remotely probable, that documents could have existed, but have since been destroyed by time? Equally probable that luck/fate (your choice) is responsible for biblical texts' survival over other documents?

Or, would it be possible documents could have been purposefully destroyed/prevented? Rome maybe didn't want the embarrassment, thus led to it looking like Christians made it all up?

I do share your curiosity on this issue. I am not familiar enough with the history/culture/science to know the answers to those.
aka AO's AngelicKnight
The forums are finally back!
http://www.jameswebsite.net

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18962
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Canada

Post: # 117154Post Egaladeist
Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:10 pm

There is one thing when looking at history you have to remember...manuscripts and writings had been very well known in that part of the world centuries before Jesus...the Romans based much of their culture after the Greeks who were prolific writers as the breast of philosophical texts document...

the New Testament itself was written in Greek...

so to say that all non-partisan mention of a man who historically is claimed to have been known as far away as Rome aged away would really be pushing the envelope...

is it possible that a major conspiracy occurred to wipe out his existence from any writing from Jerusalem to Rome ...

possible but very unlikely.
www.thetazzone.com www.thegameszone.org

User avatar
DaFoxx
DaBOSS
Posts: 8766
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:20 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun

Post: # 117155Post DaFoxx
Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:11 pm

is it remotely probable, that documents could have existed, but have since been destroyed by time?
absolutely NOT
these are supposed to be the words of GOD herself
or of her SON FFS

if it WAS a god
you would think that the people around him, would have transcribed EVERYTHING he spoke

yet there is NOTHING
just a book, written centuries after the alleged appearence
with no mention abut this GOD anywhere else on EARTH

it HAS to be a crock

ME ?
I believe in me
I believe in friendship / hope / a good blade / and beer
if I could add motrcycles in there, I would :P :)

sex might make the world go around
but it aint anything without love

maybe John Lennon got it right

all you DO need is love

on a side note, I live local to Liverrpool John Lennon airport
and they have taken as the site motto, a Lennon line from Imagine

Above us only sky .............









unfortunately, the baggage handlers also took a line

imagine no possessions :P :)
Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's :shock:

User avatar
James
I do stuff
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post: # 117161Post James
Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:30 pm

Fair enough. So the reasoned conclusion is:

1) It is highly unlikely partisan documents would survive while nonpartisan documents perished, regardless of luck of the draw or fate.

2) It is perhaps less unlikely, but all the same highly unlikely, that a conspiracy resulted in the nonexistence of nonpartisan documents. i.e. The great Empire had no embarrassment to hide.
just a book, written centuries after the alleged appearence
How sure are we of this part? I've read different things, but weren't the Apostles themselves at least responsible for some of the writing? Letters written to churches by said apostles, not that long after Jesus' death?

And all that said, are there any other possibilities we have not yet laid out on the table?
I believe in friendship / hope / a good blade / and beer
Ya know, you might be closer to my own faith than you'd be willing to admit. :eek:
aka AO's AngelicKnight
The forums are finally back!
http://www.jameswebsite.net

Post Reply