You are a bad bad person that is going to hell!!I Wear Pants wrote: What created god?
But a very interesting question to ponder.
You are a bad bad person that is going to hell!!I Wear Pants wrote: What created god?
Actually yes, look no further than all the atrocities that were committed before there was any sort of religion. Humans don't play well with others, especially ones that are different.sleeper wrote:Can you prove that?Mr Pat wrote:You really think if those people didn't have religion they wouldn't kill? Come on now man. If they didn't have religion as an excuse to kill, they'd find another reason.sleeper wrote:See 9/11/2001Mr Pat wrote:I'm not convinced!O-Trap wrote: Does anyone still think that I'm not the real OTrap?![]()
Most religions preach tolerance and peace, I don't see why that is a detriment to society. Like it's been stated before, if there weren't religion, we would find something else to fight about. Even before there was any sense of religion man was killing off one another.
Disagree. Unless "he is who is without sin may cast the first stone" would invite a lot more atrocities.jefft01 wrote: If people truly lived according to the NT there would be a lot more atrocities and violence in the name of a god, unless of course you pick and choose the few good things and ignore all the violence. The only code one needs to live by is "The Golden Rule", which predates all monotheism by many, many years.
Before there was any sort of religion?Mr Pat wrote:Actually yes, look no further than all the atrocities that were committed before there was any sort of religion. Humans don't play well with others, especially ones that are different.sleeper wrote:Can you prove that?Mr Pat wrote:You really think if those people didn't have religion they wouldn't kill? Come on now man. If they didn't have religion as an excuse to kill, they'd find another reason.sleeper wrote:See 9/11/2001Mr Pat wrote:I'm not convinced!O-Trap wrote: Does anyone still think that I'm not the real OTrap?![]()
Most religions preach tolerance and peace, I don't see why that is a detriment to society. Like it's been stated before, if there weren't religion, we would find something else to fight about. Even before there was any sense of religion man was killing off one another.
I don't think the argument is that there wouldn't be atrocities if religion never existed. Rather it is that religion hasn't really done much to stop those things from happening anyway.bigdaddy2003 wrote: I'm not a religious man but anyone who says there wouldn't be atrocities if religion never existed is smoking something.
So apparently you haven't read the NT if you think that's the only thing in it. Like I said, if you are selective you can find some good things there, but you'll also find as much, injustice, violence, and cruelty.Mr Pat wrote:Disagree. Unless "he is who is without sin may cast the first stone" would invite a lot more atrocities.jefft01 wrote: If people truly lived according to the NT there would be a lot more atrocities and violence in the name of a god, unless of course you pick and choose the few good things and ignore all the violence. The only code one needs to live by is "The Golden Rule", which predates all monotheism by many, many years.
Coming from the guy who "knows" society would have developed similar laws to what we have if religion never existed...interesting.sleeper wrote:
Can you prove that?
You obviously have missed the point with the New Testament vs the Old Testament, but whatever floats your boat.jefft01 wrote: Unfortunately I think if it weren't religion causing people to kill it would be politics, and if not politics it would be some other difference that caused people to fight. Though saying that ours or any other laws came from the 10 commandments or our morals are learned from religion would be terrifying if it were really so. I would never teach my children the perverted morals of the bible. And can you imagine being charged with blasphemy or for working on a sunday. Ridiculous if you can't get past all the crap by the time you're an adult and hopefully keep the nonsense from spreading to the next generation. Religion is divisive and exclusive, an enemy of science and progress, and one of the obstacles to true unity and peace.
Nope definitely didn't miss it. Just because the Old is worse doesn't mean the New is good, because it's definitely not. Maybe you missed the point - Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."jmog wrote:You obviously have missed the point with the New Testament vs the Old Testament, but whatever floats your boat.jefft01 wrote: Unfortunately I think if it weren't religion causing people to kill it would be politics, and if not politics it would be some other difference that caused people to fight. Though saying that ours or any other laws came from the 10 commandments or our morals are learned from religion would be terrifying if it were really so. I would never teach my children the perverted morals of the bible. And can you imagine being charged with blasphemy or for working on a sunday. Ridiculous if you can't get past all the crap by the time you're an adult and hopefully keep the nonsense from spreading to the next generation. Religion is divisive and exclusive, an enemy of science and progress, and one of the obstacles to true unity and peace.
Outstanding post FFT.fan_from_texas wrote:The Gospel of Thomas (which you won't find in the Bible because the church felt that its message was a detriment to their own fiscal cause) says in verse 77. " I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there." Basically, you don't need to go to church to be a good person. You also don't need to go to church to find God, because God is everywhere. Therefore I do not see how people giving their time, money, and lives to an organized religion is beneficial. Having a personal relationship with God (or Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Chuck Norris, whomever) is far more beneficial both on a personal and societal level in my opinion.
How familiar are you with the gnostic gospels and why they were/were not included in the canon? There are a number of very good reasons why the GoT wasn't directly included in the canon, and the church's pecuniary interest wasn't among those, as far as historian's can tell. That's a little too much Dan Brown and not enough history.
Regardless, I'm not sure your exegesis on v77 is particularly accurate. If anything, v77 suggests something more pantheistic and gnostic, which is the traditional scholarly reading of the GoT. The idea of God being all and in all is more closely akin to various gnostic movements in the Middle East, e.g., the Sufis. But being pantheist and gnostic doesn't necessarily go against communal meeting and "organized" religion. We've seen most groups along those lines become more communal than ever. The idea of "individualized pantheism" is a bastardized American creation that basically says, "I want to believe in something convenient so I can be spiritual, but I don't want to have to do anything real about it." That is an admittedly convenient, pluralistic, and non-threatening way to approach religion, but that doesn't seem to square up with rigorous philosophical or theological thought.
In short, I'm not sure where you got your information from regarding the GoT, but from what you've typed here, it appears that you've built a personal belief system based on an erroneous (albeit conveniently western) interpretation of one of the Nag Hammadi docs. You can believe whatever you want and live your life however you want, but it's not reasonable to throw out your thoughts on this as though they're accurate. Hold 'em, but treat 'em like what they are--a way for Americans to feel good but not have to follow through.
Re aliens: the Bible doesn't say (or even suggest) that there are no aliens. The Bible states that there are non-human beings that exist. I assume there is other intelligent life out there, which is consistent with (and reinforced by) the Bible itself. I don't know why that would be embarrassing for religious people unless they took a hard line over a meaningless issue (which happens all the time. See, e.g., Falwell and the dinosaur bones). Picking apart the words of dumb Christians is pretty easy, and while it proves that there are some religious morons out there, these sort of ad hominem attacks don't say much at all about the validity of the religion itself.
Nope, I saw that part, and matter of fact I teach it to my junior high Sunday School class every 2 years.jefft01 wrote:
Nope definitely didn't miss it. Just because the Old is worse doesn't mean the New is good, because it's definitely not. Maybe you missed the point - Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Some of us use our reasoning skills to eliminate all other possibilities (evolution, etc) and are only left with God as the last possible answer.jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.
So you think this is good?jmog wrote:Nope, I saw that part, and matter of fact I teach it to my junior high Sunday School class every 2 years.jefft01 wrote:
Nope definitely didn't miss it. Just because the Old is worse doesn't mean the New is good, because it's definitely not. Maybe you missed the point - Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
However, I still fail to see where any of the teachings of Jesus or the NT refer to what you said in your original post.
I've met many smart Christians and non-Christians alike, just as I have met many dumb Christians and non-Christians. Similarly, I've met many moronic Ohio State fans who say their program is one of the best in the country. Even if they, individually, are stupid, that doesn't detract from the validity of their claim, which stands or falls on its own.jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.
1. Jesus did not "accept" all the laws of the OT, he challenged many of the Jewish laws, just not the ones set forth by God in the 10 commandments. He did fully believe in all the "right/wrong" laws just not some of the punishments listed in the Jewish law, as evidence by his saving of the woman accused of adultery who was about to be stoned with his "he is without sin cast the first stone".jefft01 wrote:
So you think this is good?
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Or that Jesus accepts the laws of the Old Testament?
I don't understand how you can't see it.
Best post on this thread, well, OTrap's was closefan_from_texas wrote:I've met many smart Christians and non-Christians alike, just as I have met many dumb Christians and non-Christians. Similarly, I've met many moronic Ohio State fans who say their program is one of the best in the country. Even if they, individually, are stupid, that doesn't detract from the validity of their claim, which stands or falls on its own.jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.
It also seems to me that there's a difference between some sort of basic apologetic explanation for faith, on the one hand, and the reasons for faith embraced by most people, on the other hand. I've no doubt that most people on either side can't provide adequate, solid, philosophically and logically sound reasoning for their beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. There are plenty of good arguments on both sides of the issue.
On the balance, I think there's very strong support for the existence of some sort of God that fits into the Judeo-Christian mold. The tougher trick--and the one with which I struggle the most--is going from that step to picking Christianity as better than the other internally consistent monotheisms. It still strikes me as more probable than not, but it's a close call.
Maybe "accept" was the wrong word, how about "uphold" or "confirm" which is exactly what Matthew 5:17 implies.jmog wrote:1. Jesus did not "accept" all the laws of the OT, he challenged many of the Jewish laws, just not the ones set forth by God in the 10 commandments. He did fully believe in all the "right/wrong" laws just not some of the punishments listed in the Jewish law, as evidence by his saving of the woman accused of adultery who was about to be stoned with his "he is without sin cast the first stone".jefft01 wrote:
So you think this is good?
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Or that Jesus accepts the laws of the Old Testament?
I don't understand how you can't see it.
2. Your part in Matthew is Jesus talking about how he came to the world to challenge the old Jewish belief system, to fulfill their Messiah, but to show the Jews the errors of their ways. He KNEW that as people converted to believe in him, it would divide households and Jewish parents would despise their converted children or vice versa. He was dismissing the notion that him coming to Earth and people believing in him would be a peaceful utopia.
This still exists today, in most Jewish and Islamic families (Middle East where Jesus' ministry was located) if someone in the family converts to Christianity they are despised completely, still nearly 2000 years later. Imagine how it was during Jesus time when by historical records Christianity was still considered a "cult"?
He was just giving a dose of reality, not saying he was coming to wage war.
Nice try to take it way out of context though.
1. Notice in Matthew 5 its he came to fullfill the law and the prophets, it does not imply that he agreed with all of the Jewish punishments spelled out in their law. Huge jump/leap there on your part. He was saying he came to be the Messiah, to fulfill what the OT was pointing towards.jefft01 wrote:
Maybe "accept" was the wrong word, how about "uphold" or "confirm" which is exactly what Matthew 5:17 implies.
He doesn't say "he knows that it's going to divide households when people convert to believe in him." He says that he comes for that specific purpose. So cruelty in this context is cool, but you're ok with that because it's your brand? Nice try yourself.