bloody christians - TTLG Forums

screech on 29/1/2004 at 18:41

Well, the only thing each reference verifies is the particular historical event and doesn't confer validity to other elements of the book. Ancient texts or more appropriately lore were an amalgam of history, legend, advice, current events, editorials, law etc. Stuff that got talked about around the camp fire/hearth. All of it was developed and transmitted orally extensively, having to gain cultural mind share, before finding itself written form.

It seems people will argue endlessly over historical factuality in lieu of trying to become a decent human being.

Jenesis on 29/1/2004 at 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by the_grip Surely you are not advocating that Jesus was insinuating that people can live righteous enough to please God? Jesus is claiming you can't live righteously... just after the Pharisee comment he dives into showing that you commit murder if you are angry in your heart, adultry if you lust, etc. which shows that no man can claim to be righteous, that we are all sinners and condemned.

Sorry, I'm not making myself clear. We both agree that it is impossible to live a life sufficiently pleasing to God that we can become truly righteous and enter heaven under our own steam. However, neither this nor our access to forgiveness through Jesus absolves us from the need to live as righteously as we can. Indeed, if we are truly in a right relationship with God, we will want to do this anyway. Unless we flee from any attempt to curb the implications of God's laws (which is where all the committing adultery/murder/etc in your heart comes in), then we cannot truly say that we are devoted to him, and are willing to let him rule our lives. See (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=romans+6&x=0&y=0) Romans Ch.6, where Paul talks about making ourselves slaves to righteousness, rather than slaves to sin.

Of course, sin is something we can never escape from in this life, and so we need to continually come to God for forgiveness...but that's not what this passage is about, as the concept of forgiveness through Jesus hasn't come up yet. That's what I was trying to say, as well as that the message of the New Testament is not easy to follow.

Actually, to get this passage in context you have to look further up as well. The traditional divisions and headings in Bibles can often be unhelpful by breaking up the flow where it was not intended. The Pharisee part comes just after Jesus has told his disciples that they must all be like salt, like a city on a hill, like a lamp on a stand - that is, they must stand out as being different. Jesus then goes on to tell them that they must stand out by living differently - more righteously than the Pharisees, not even hating anyone in their hearts, etc. etc.

Christians, living as God wants them to, must stand out as being different. If we don't live any differently to the world, then we have nothing to say to the world. Back to (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Matthew+5&version=NIV) v.11, v.16 - v.11: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Christians, living as Christians should, are going to look mighty odd to the rest of the world. Their refusal to sacrifice their principles before God may make them very unpopular. One example I heard was that of a woman who refused (and made it clear that this would be the case beforehand) to accept her 'tax free' bonus without declaring it on her tax form. So everyone else had to declare it as well. She was not, as you can imagine, very popular in the office.

v.16: "...let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

But just as we look strange, people will be looking for the reason why we're doing these things, and they will realise that it is because of our faith, thereby offering, however inadvertently, praise to the Father for our good deeds.

More later, when I've read the thread.

fett on 29/1/2004 at 18:43

Off topic: I think this is the first place I've ever felt comfortable discussing stuff like this, and I'm amazed that we're not cutting each other's throats out. Cool.

...I love this place [/sniff...]

Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by fett
Absolutely.

However, it SHOULD NOT be held in derision and ridicule beyond the bounds of other such books that claim equally weird stuff and yet maintain a suspended respect by acadamia.

In the end, the scoffers look like idiots when digs start producing these sites and names. It's unprofessional and childish at best, and it betrays a certain fear of the spiritual message of the book. IMO if you're going to be an atheist, then you should be a damned good one and not resort to ridicule to elevate your position. It's an equally ugly tactic on the part of 'creationists' and Christians who are just as biased on the other end of the spectrum.

That's not why you're being mocked, ridiculed, derided and openly humiliated time and again. Nobody scoffs at whether or not Saul, Pilate existed. We scoff at the loopy bullshit that people pull out of it, like "God'll tell you that it's all true, and then you'll just know."

Just because it hurts your feelings for us to say that it's loopy bullshit doesn't make the majority of what you believe any less ridiculous. People who say stupid shit don't deserve to have their feelings spared for doing so, so who really gives a flying fuck about what you think makes a good atheist? Personally, I really don't give a damn if the creationists resort to such an "ugly tactic," because, quite frankly, it's usually laughable when they attempt to do so.

rossmac16 on 29/1/2004 at 19:01

I don't know what it is, but get more than one person talking about religion (and yes, I'm assuming he's wearing just a pair of frilly pink panties and shouting that he's Jesus from atop a bench in the park) and I start getting the urge to purify the earth.

The fact of the matter is that "proving" the authenticity of anything is a hopeless task, and as any physicist would tell you, you can't ever prove everything.

Take The Illiad. An epic poem, whose authenticity rests largely on the fact that Calypso directs Odysseus to keep the great bear always on the left as he travels from the Pillars of Heracles to Corfu, which nowadays would end the traveller up on the shores of Africa. This was taken to be inaccuracy, but sure enough it was explained by precession of the equinoxes. Does it mean it's true? No.

My favourite thing is the fundamentalist (or "half wit") christians who actually take the bible to be literal truth. Apparently the world is 10000 years old. Guess they need to take it up with the geologists.

In any case, why would anyone care about the factual nature of the bible? Isn't it, after all, faith that matters? I mean I don't "believe" in the second law of thermodynamics. It'd be like believing in the colour blue.

Anyway, even though we have found the lost ark of the covenant and the holy grail, surely no-one's actually stupid enough to believe in God? I mean it is just an act people put on in forums and at parties right?

rossmac16 on 29/1/2004 at 19:03

Oh, and I'm disappointed no one's brought up Anselm's ontological argument.

I expected better from TTLG.

screech on 29/1/2004 at 19:04

Hrm, where did God ever say in the Bible that getting angry was necessarily bad? He is well on record showing that emotion Himself. I find it strange that he struck down whoever that chick was because she didn't want to become the mother of Jesus. Like any decent male would just say, OK, and move on.

Jesus fought a battle against pro-forma/ritualistic spirituality. Thing is, the opposite extreme is rife with it's own problems, because it suggests that intention regardless of results is the only measure of an act.

On either side we act little better than machines or animals, leading a life of compassionless pretense. The part I don't like about the Christian message is the suggestion that one has to turn to an external source (God or Jesus) to provide the element of compassion/sancitity in human life. From what I know, this was not part of Jesus' message, but one of those misconceptions that has gained mind share.

fett on 29/1/2004 at 19:16

RBJ - I'm not humiliated in the least. And you're wrong - 50 years ago, that was exactly the arguement against most of the NT text - the Pilate, Jesus, Saul, etc. never existed - that they were fictional characters. We know now that they did exist, and most of thier activities as they relate to history (not miracles or spirituality) are vaild as represented in the Biblical text. It has nothing to do with loopy bullshit. It's not the loopy bullshit I care about, it's the veracity of the text as it pertains to archaeology and history.

I don't expect you to give a flying fuck what I think makes a good atheist - I know what makes a good atheist, because I have been one, and may possibly decide to become one again. However - thank you for illustrating my point that it's impossible for otherwise intelligent people to discuss the issue without becoming volitile, arrogant, and abusive. Exibit number one ladies and gentlemen.

Back to the topic - what 'stupid shit' have I said that deserves to be ridiculed? The case I'm making is based on verifyable archaeological finds and documentation. Case in point - distinguish my feelings being hurt, and your hostility from the actual facts of the Bible's historicity (take a deep breath...). Who cares how anybody feels about it? What has been proven true and what can you lay to the side? Are you able to make the distinction? Here's a helpful hint: Calling me names and using the word 'fuck' alot doesn't really scare or impress me, it just proves my point.

Gingerbread Man on 29/1/2004 at 19:48

Is Christianity the only major religion that is predicated on its Main Dude having a familial tie to the God?

Seems to me that a lot of the inherent ¬¬ I have with hardcore Christers is that whole God In A Nazarene thing. Moses and Mohammed were just regular Joes until something divine wandered over and started muttering in their ear. Siddhartha was a happy-go-lucky princely prince until he had a bit of an eye-opening experience with poverty and started thinking differently.

But Jesus has this whole Not From Around Here thing... I generally assume that it's a result of Christianity being, at root, a "we're not Jewish" cult -- bunch of guys who found what they figured was a more relevant set of ideas coming out of the mouth of an unusually compassionate hippy. Maybe Jesus was a bit of a nutcase and the "I am the son of God" stuff came straight from his mouth instead of put there by his hangers-on, maybe he was slightly (though harmlessly) insane. Certainly the Romans weren't too happy with the political implications of his teachings.

Beats the hell out of me.

I just get the feeling that if Mr Jesus was to wander back in, he'd be a bit embarrassed by the brou-ha-ha and "omg he = g0dd"

Certainly he'd be a bit miffed at the symbolic representation of the legacy of his teaching being a giant mock-up of his final minutes on Earth... If I were Jesus and I walked into a Catholic church and saw that big-ass Me-Nailed-To-A-Cross in lovely gory detail, I'd go have a HELL of a shout at the priest. Once I'd finished vomiting.

I think that's where it all starts to go wrong in my view. The Christ thing.

(I'm not saying the God thing makes any more sense to me, but at least that's a pretty standard prerequisite for religions... Seems only cults and less-savoury groups of self-castrating chant-mutterers have figureheads who claim or are claimed to be a divine being upon the Earth)

Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 19:49

fett, you are sooooooo cute when you try to act smart and stuff about the bible.

You're building strawmen, and irelevant ones at that. Serious historical and archeological scholars did not merely dismiss it as pure fiction, they rightfully questioned its veracity.

Please, get over yourself and stop imagining that I'm 'volitile' (sic) or 'hostile' or that I even care about impressing or scaring you, you ain't worth it. Quit playing to the peanut gallery.

One of the proper reactions for any reasonably intelligent person when faced with inane chatter is smirking bemusement, and trust me when I tell you that my facial expressions right now reflect that in full force.

And btw, I said that what you believe is loopy bullshit, maybe you should learn how to parse a bit better, especially if you're going to spend any more time deconstructing biblical documents, eh, kiddo?