How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?

The point is that we aren’t certain, but seeing as there is no proof, we’ll just live as if there isn’t.[/quote]

But there is the great fulcrum on which you and pookie and the rest balance your precarious views of the world. . . . no “proof” of God - thus you can assure yourselves that it is alright to live ignoring the potentiality . . . but the crux is that you get to determine what will constitute proof to you and if no one can meet your arbitrary proof - then you get to go on your merry way deriding those who did find proof enough to cause them to accept the existence of the Divine.

Even pookie knows this is the case when I pointed at the universe as proof of the Divine and he doesn’t consider it proof enough for him . . . it is a personal choice - one made in free will . . . or (if you’re right) just a chemical process that caused you to deny the existence of God . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Here’s what I’m trying to get at, though. If I accept that there might be (not is, but might) a creator(s) and an afterlife, then I’m wondering why we’re not automatically in the afterlife, in the prescence of the creator(s).

Excellent question.

I have to conclude that there would be types the creator(s) (if they might exist) would not tolerate in the afterlife.

Your conclusion brings up the question of why the creator would create beings he can’t tolerate. If the creator is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, it also seems illogical for him to have “intolerances” towards some of his creations.

Therefore, a judgement would be made after a time. Maybe the time could be a lifespan, in fact. Since there is judgement, there are do’s and dont’s. Since there are do’s and dont’s, they must be revealed to the created so they know what pleases and earns the eternal reward. Therefore, there must be some kind of deposit of revelation in the created’s history.

Sadly, many, many beings never make it old enough to be able to follow the do’s and don’ts. What about them? What about those who die from miscarriages or diseases? Is the creator either allowing them to skip judgement, or are they getting a free pass?

And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?

If there is a God, it seems improbable that one of the world’s 3000 religion has got it right, while the other 2,999 are wrong. More likely, they’re all wrong; if not about the existence of God, at least about his nature and his will.

Furthermore, if you study the history of religions, you can see that there’s been a lot of cross-pollination between the various faiths. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism and absorbs various pagan rites as it spreads; Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many motifs are found repeatedly: Trinities, virgin births, resurrections, healings and miracles, fulfilling prophecy, etc.

For one of those religions, developed through borrowing and accretion, to get the entire picture right seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Among believers, only deists or pantheists have a truly justifiable position.
[/quote]

You are an idiot - Christianity did not “borrow” from Judaism but is the continuation of Judaism following the revelation of the Messiah . . . wow - don’t even know the basics but feel free to comment from your ignorance . . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Chushin wrote:
pookie wrote:
Chushin wrote:
I have not perceived the same level of derision on their part.

Or perhaps you’re just more skilled at it?

They’re off the hook because they suck at it?

Nope, I was just admitting that MAYBE I noticed you more because you were more effective with it. Acknowledging a possible faulty perception.

Ok, I get your point. On the bright side, it leaves me the choice of cutting down on either quantity or quality.

[/quote]

volume and vocabulary do not a genius make . . . .

[Cowboy_69]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

volume and vocabulary do not a genius make . . . .[/quote]

Hypocrisy does not a credible defender of an ideal make.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Pro-torturer here . . . have no mercy in war or face defeat . . .[/quote]

Source: Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness

I`m always amused at the hypocrisy of die-hard Christians

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Cowboy_69 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

volume and vocabulary do not a genius make . . . .

Hypocrisy does not a credible defender of an ideal make.

IrishSteel wrote:
Pro-torturer here . . . have no mercy in war or face defeat . . .

Source: Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness

I`m always amused at the hypocrisy of die-hard Christians :D[/quote]

and once again - no hypocrisy - choices have consequences . . .

Snide observations do not a wit make . . .

[orion]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Here’s what I’m trying to get at, though. If I accept that there might be (not is, but might) a creator(s) and an afterlife, then I’m wondering why we’re not automatically in the afterlife, in the prescence of the creator(s).

Excellent question.

I have to conclude that there would be types the creator(s) (if they might exist) would not tolerate in the afterlife.

Your conclusion brings up the question of why the creator would create beings he can’t tolerate. If the creator is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, it also seems illogical for him to have “intolerances” towards some of his creations.

Therefore, a judgement would be made after a time. Maybe the time could be a lifespan, in fact. Since there is judgement, there are do’s and dont’s. Since there are do’s and dont’s, they must be revealed to the created so they know what pleases and earns the eternal reward. Therefore, there must be some kind of deposit of revelation in the created’s history.

Sadly, many, many beings never make it old enough to be able to follow the do’s and don’ts. What about them? What about those who die from miscarriages or diseases? Is the creator either allowing them to skip judgement, or are they getting a free pass?

And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?

If there is a God, it seems improbable that one of the world’s 3000 religion has got it right, while the other 2,999 are wrong. More likely, they’re all wrong; if not about the existence of God, at least about his nature and his will.

Furthermore, if you study the history of religions, you can see that there’s been a lot of cross-pollination between the various faiths. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism and absorbs various pagan rites as it spreads; Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many motifs are found repeatedly: Trinities, virgin births, resurrections, healings and miracles, fulfilling prophecy, etc.

For one of those religions, developed through borrowing and accretion, to get the entire picture right seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Among believers, only deists or pantheists have a truly justifiable position.

You are an idiot - Christianity did not “borrow” from Judaism but is the continuation of Judaism following the revelation of the Messiah . . . wow - don’t even know the basics but feel free to comment from your ignorance . . . .[/quote]

Really?

Why can´t I see it as the Horus legend in search of a new vehicle?

Or the re-launch of the Mithras cult?

[orion]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Cowboy_69 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

volume and vocabulary do not a genius make . . . .

Hypocrisy does not a credible defender of an ideal make.

IrishSteel wrote:
Pro-torturer here . . . have no mercy in war or face defeat . . .

Source: Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness

I`m always amused at the hypocrisy of die-hard Christians

and once again - no hypocrisy - choices have consequences . . .

Snide observations do not a wit make . . . [/quote]

Yes. some choices reveal that people worship the state instead of trusting in God.

Some choices reveal that some people care more for worldly possessions than their immortal soul.

Some choices reveal that some people should call themselves Jehova-ites for the Prince of Peace is most definitely not their Messiah, nor have they chosen to be saved by him or follow his teachings.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Here’s what I’m trying to get at, though. If I accept that there might be (not is, but might) a creator(s) and an afterlife, then I’m wondering why we’re not automatically in the afterlife, in the prescence of the creator(s).

Excellent question.

I have to conclude that there would be types the creator(s) (if they might exist) would not tolerate in the afterlife.

Your conclusion brings up the question of why the creator would create beings he can’t tolerate. If the creator is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, it also seems illogical for him to have “intolerances” towards some of his creations.

Therefore, a judgement would be made after a time. Maybe the time could be a lifespan, in fact. Since there is judgement, there are do’s and dont’s. Since there are do’s and dont’s, they must be revealed to the created so they know what pleases and earns the eternal reward. Therefore, there must be some kind of deposit of revelation in the created’s history.

Sadly, many, many beings never make it old enough to be able to follow the do’s and don’ts. What about them? What about those who die from miscarriages or diseases? Is the creator either allowing them to skip judgement, or are they getting a free pass?

And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?

If there is a God, it seems improbable that one of the world’s 3000 religion has got it right, while the other 2,999 are wrong. More likely, they’re all wrong; if not about the existence of God, at least about his nature and his will.

Furthermore, if you study the history of religions, you can see that there’s been a lot of cross-pollination between the various faiths. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism and absorbs various pagan rites as it spreads; Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many motifs are found repeatedly: Trinities, virgin births, resurrections, healings and miracles, fulfilling prophecy, etc.

For one of those religions, developed through borrowing and accretion, to get the entire picture right seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Among believers, only deists or pantheists have a truly justifiable position.

You are an idiot - Christianity did not “borrow” from Judaism but is the continuation of Judaism following the revelation of the Messiah . . . wow - don’t even know the basics but feel free to comment from your ignorance . . . .

Really?

Why can�´t I see it as the Horus legend in search of a new vehicle?

Or the re-launch of the Mithras cult?
[/quote]

and you reached idiot-hood as well - I made a specific statement about a specific statement and now you bring in more “unreleated to the statement” idiocy . . .good for you . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Cowboy_69 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

volume and vocabulary do not a genius make . . . .

Hypocrisy does not a credible defender of an ideal make.

IrishSteel wrote:
Pro-torturer here . . . have no mercy in war or face defeat . . .

Source: Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness

I`m always amused at the hypocrisy of die-hard Christians

and once again - no hypocrisy - choices have consequences . . .

Snide observations do not a wit make . . .

Yes. some choices reveal that people worship the state instead of trusting in God.

Some choices reveal that some people care more for worldly possessions than their immortal soul.

Some choices reveal that some people should call themselves Jehova-ites for the Prince of Peace is most definitely not their Messiah, nor have they chosen to be saved by him or follow his teachings.
[/quote]

go liberals!

go materialists!

go idiots? . . . wow - you just keep swinging for the fences - someday you might have a point

[pookie]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, he could be uninvolved, but then the Creator runs into the same challenges atheists level at the Christian God. Why was evil allowed to exist? Why pain and suffering? Especially if there isn’t even an afterlife.[/quote]

Well, that’s the universe we get. If we agree that the purpose is unknowable, then questioning it won’t help much.

And again, figure out what? Figure out what pleases a thing with the will and power to set all of creation in motion? Or, simply for each individual to figure out if he wants to live through cooperation or through might, neither lifestlye neccesairily pleasing it.

If we do figure it out, maybe it’ll seem self-evident then. If you look at all the moral codes in the world, there is a lot of commonality. Presumably, we can eventually figure out a complete “universal” one.

My mistake, I didn’t mean forget in the sense of not being able to recall. More like a boy tossing a toy to the side for a new one.

That wouldn’t be much of a God. It’d be more similar to the petulant Q from Star Trek. Much of the philosophical thinking about the nature of God leads one to think that God, if such a being exists, cannot be a capricious creature.

Not sure how to respond. I might have a faulty impression of Deism, but I hadn’t believed it allowed any room for “directions.” If I’m correct, and the deists doesn’t recognize any directions deposited by the Creator, that’s pretty strong evidence that the Creator isn’t all that interested in it’s creatures. Meaning, nothing really pleases or displeases it. Because, even if the goal is to allow humans free will, and to give them the freedom to determine their fate on a material plane, going the wrong way or the right way, (for whatever reason), an interested party would leave some instruction (though with a small footprint) on how to earn it’s approval. Not saying a Creator need to be held to the same role as a parent, but wouldn’t we think that an interested parent would provide some direction to it’s offspring?

Maybe the instructions are implicit in the fact that any intelligent life will eventually become sufficiently intelligent to figure out the proper life code.

Not sure either that a Creator/created relationship needs to be similar to parent/child.

Ok. If an afterlife IS included then the uninvolved deity is even more despicable. How do I earn it’s approval to earn the eternal award? Not even a drop of revelation somewhere in human history as a guide? Now, if the answer is that all make it to the afterlife, than what was the point of the material life? Of pain and death? I’d share the afterlife with rapists and murderers? If so, why not cut out the middle portion?

Excellent question, considering that I cut out the “after” portion and assume this life is the only one.

Assuming there is an afterlife and no “official” guidance for this one; maybe the simple realization of what we’ve inflicted upon others is punishment enough. Most people assume that they’ll be intellectually enlightened in their next life; maybe such enlightenment bring about the understanding of their “evil” in this life. Knowing nothing of what an afterlife might entail, it’s very difficult to speculate what it’s purpose would be.

Let’s not skip pre-death and post birth. Any man who says he doesn’t fear death is a liar or a lunatic. Fear of death drives the want for health care. “You’ve got cancer.” “You couldn’t have told me this over the phone doc? I had plans to go fishing today. Sorry, but you’ve kind of wasted my time. Gotta go before the fish stop biting” And, there are few men who would really risk their life for an 80 year old stranger. I believe you’d recognize a human who truly doesn’t fear death, by his very inhuman behavior.

Everyone wants to live as long as possible, that’s pretty much a given. But once you know your death is imminent, it need not be necessarily terrifying. It seems to me possible to accept a coming death in serene fashion. Maybe I’m wrong and I’ll shit bricks when my time comes, but for now I think it at least plausible to accept death.

As for health care, a lot of it is fear of pain and of life without dignity. Very few people wish to live long years in terrible pain while depending on others to be fed, cleaned and changed. There are some things worse than death.

Anyways, I don’t want to drag this out. I don’t mean to come off as trying to convert Deists to choosing between Atheism and a religious faith. And, have I missed any barbs thrown my way (I see you and Push going at it), or am I on the nice list?

I really doubt that anyone ever converts unless they decide to do so themselves. I still think deists or pantheists can support their cases. Personally, I think their problem is a more pragmatic one: Why choose belief but reject all the societal advantages of believing? It’s like those people who claim to be spiritual, but not religious. Maybe I’m just too cynical.

If getting rid of the barbs gets more people like you and DrSkeptix to participate in these discussions, I can do without. Raising the level of debate a bit makes for much more interesting exchanges. I’d rather wrap my head around some new idea than try to come up with a clever put down.

[pookie]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…And, have I missed any barbs thrown my way (I see you and Push going at it), or am I on the nice list?

Some day when it is revealed that Pookie and I are the same person posting under different screen names, the most elaborate and finely tuned troll job of all time will be memorialized in the Internet Hall of Troll Fame. Maybe.[/quote]

The remaining question: Was pookie the “real” person pretending to be push, or was it push who made up pookie?

[pookie]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The point is that we aren’t certain, but seeing as there is no proof, we’ll just live as if there isn’t.[/quote]

It’s worse than no proof. It’s no evidence at all.

Even pookie knows this is the case when I pointed at the universe as proof of the Divine and he doesn’t consider it proof enough for him

Is it impossible for the universe to have a non divine origin?

. . . it is a personal choice - one made in free will . . . or (if you’re right) just a chemical process that caused you to deny the existence of God . . .

The way I see it is that if there is a God, then I can at least claim to have been honest in my assessment about His existence.

I could claim to believe and give all the proper outward signs. But I bet that wouldn’t deceive God. I’d rather take my chance as an honest atheist than a deceitful fake believer who thinks he can fool God.

[pookie]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You are an idiot - Christianity did not “borrow” from Judaism but is the continuation of Judaism following the revelation of the Messiah . . . wow - don’t even know the basics but feel free to comment from your ignorance . . . .[/quote]

Wasn’t it you who claimed I wasn’t worth your time?

You’re very charitable.

[Sloth]

[quote]pookie wrote:
If getting rid of the barbs gets more people like you and DrSkeptix to participate in these discussions, I can do without. Raising the level of debate a bit makes for much more interesting exchanges. I’d rather wrap my head around some new idea than try to come up with a clever put down.
[/quote]

Heh, yeah. Fun exchange for once.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pookie wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
The point is that we aren’t certain, but seeing as there is no proof, we’ll just live as if there isn’t.

It’s worse than no proof. It’s no evidence at all.

Even pookie knows this is the case when I pointed at the universe as proof of the Divine and he doesn’t consider it proof enough for him

Is it impossible for the universe to have a non divine origin?

. . . it is a personal choice - one made in free will . . . or (if you’re right) just a chemical process that caused you to deny the existence of God . . .

The way I see it is that if there is a God, then I can at least claim to have been honest in my assessment about His existence.

I could claim to believe and give all the proper outward signs. But I bet that wouldn’t deceive God. I’d rather take my chance as an honest atheist than a deceitful fake believer who thinks he can fool God.
[/quote]

It is neither impossible for there to be a divine nor non-divine origin of the universe . . .

are you implying that I have not been honest in my assessment? apparently you skipped a number of the posts in here just to be able to spout your opinions . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pookie wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
You are an idiot - Christianity did not “borrow” from Judaism but is the continuation of Judaism following the revelation of the Messiah . . . wow - don’t even know the basics but feel free to comment from your ignorance . . . .

Wasn’t it you who claimed I wasn’t worth your time?

You’re very charitable.
[/quote]

You’re not . . . the truth is . . .

[Makavali]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
Really?

Why can’t I see it as the Horus legend in search of a new vehicle?

Or the re-launch of the Mithras cult?

and you reached idiot-hood as well - I made a specific statement about a specific statement and now you bring in more “unreleated to the statement” idiocy . . .good for you . . .[/quote]

You should read up on Mithras and Horus and perhaps more before making stupid statements like this.

The way in which Mithras was depicted shooting arrows at rocks causing fountains to spring up was adapted to represent the biblical story of Moses striking Mount Horeb with his staff to release drinking water.

Tammuz-Adonis is the Mesopotamian archetype of the dying and risen-again fertility god, and his followers practiced ritual mourning. Tammuz similar to Christ in particular by his epithet - the shepherd.

How do you know that Jesus Christ wasn’t modeled after the Greek god, Dionysus?

[IrishSteel]

Are you guys really this stupid? Dude had stated that Christianity copied from Judaism and I said he was wrong, that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism - has nothing to do with your off-the-wall comments about Mithra, Horus and Joe the plumber . . . that’s it - nothing more . . .

[Makavali]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Are you guys really this stupid? Dude had stated that Christianity copied from Judaism and I said he was wrong, that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism - has nothing to do with your off-the-wall comments about Mithra, Horus and Joe the plumber . . . that’s it - nothing more . . .[/quote]

Continuation implies that modern Judaism is less valid than Christianity.

[Makavali]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Are you guys really this stupid? Dude had stated that Christianity copied from Judaism and I said he was wrong, that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism - has nothing to do with your off-the-wall comments about Mithra, Horus and Joe the plumber . . . that’s it - nothing more . . .[/quote]

Continuation implies that modern Judaism is less valid than Christianity.