The Christian Agenda Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
There are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Muslims. (Lot of differences too just so I am clear)[/quote]

Just as an aside, it’s interesting to note that at Gethsemane, when Jesus is praying continually as his disciples keep nodding off, he said “Father, if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will but thy will be done.”

Now, disregard those fiddly questions like, if Jesus and Yahweh are the same consciousness, was he having an internal conflict? Or, if Jesus was praying alone and his disciples were asleep, just who it was who overheard his prayers so that they could be written down decades later in the gospel of Luke?

These are not the takeaway points from this episode. Let us assume that Jesus did pray in this manner (with his face flat on the ground, by the way, and facing the Temple in Jerusalem, as Jewish law commands, and as indeed Muslims did for the first thirteen years), and that he was not talking to himself, but praying to God. In these words is encapsulated the whole of Jesus’ message. “Not my will, but thy will be done.”

And there’s more:

“Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”
“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”
“Into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

Complete and utter devotion to God, complete and utter surrender to the will of God. This is the prime directive, according to Jesus.

Jeff Cooper once said, sarcastically, that peace is easy to obtain: all one has to do is give up. He was speaking in a military context, and implying that peace is overrated if it involves surrender to the enemy. That kind of peace is only a species of slavery. King David, a military man himself, maintained that those who “surrender to the Lord” will “inherit the land”, which sounds suspiciously like what Jesus said at the Sermon on the Mount about the “meek”.

Interesting thing about the word “meek”. The original Koine Greek word is praus, which is an adjective often used to refer to a horse who has been tamed, its rebellious spirit broken, and who has surrendered to the will of the master. Hmmm. So David and Jesus were saying the exact same thing. The only way to inherit the earth is to surrender yourself to God’s will. And 'tis no bad thing to be a slave of God, so they say.

Now back to peace. Must not be such a bad thing, either, if Jesus is the Prince of it. “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall receive peace.”

The word for “peace” in Hebrew is shalom. It is written with the three consonants S-L-M, which form its root. Now, in Semitic languages, you can form all varieties of related words from the same tri-consonant stem just by inserting different vowels. Write S-L-M in Arabic, and add different vowels, and you get salam, which of course means the same as shalom. The two words, written in their respective languages, look practically identical (see illustration).

Add a different combination of vowels to the stem and you get the word salima “security”, which David references in a different psalm when he says that “the Lord in my rock and my security.” And to achieve peace and security, all you need to do, say David and Jesus, is surrender. More vowel juggling and you get aslama, which is the verb “to submit or surrender”, and its noun form, which is, wait for it… islam.

So linguistically speaking, in utterly surrendering his life to the will of God, Jesus was a Muslim.

In fact, a billion Muslims do count him as one of their greatest prophets. And I doubt Jesus would have too many issues with Muslim hygeine, dietary habits, modest mode of dress (most Muslim women dress like his mom, after all), their immense charitable donations, and the abjection and piety of their worship (he would doubtless take issue with the idea of suicide bombers and terrorists, but most Muslims also think suicide bombers and terrorists are scumbags. We just don’t see them in the news).

One wonders, though, what Jesus would make of the ostentation of the Vatican. Or, for that matter, of the conspicuous consumption of so many “Christians” in the United States.

162

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
There are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Muslims. (Lot of differences too just so I am clear)[/quote]

Just as an aside, it’s interesting to note that at Gethsemane, when Jesus is praying continually as his disciples keep nodding off, he said “Father, if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will but thy will be done.”

Now, disregard those fiddly questions like, if Jesus and Yahweh are the same consciousness, was he having an internal conflict? Or, if Jesus was praying alone and his disciples were asleep, just who it was who overheard his prayers so that they could be written down decades later in the gospel of Luke?

These are not the takeaway points from this episode. Let us assume that Jesus did pray in this manner (with his face flat on the ground, by the way, and facing the Temple in Jerusalem, as Jewish law commands, and as indeed Muslims did for the first thirteen years), and that he was not talking to himself, but praying to God. In these words is encapsulated the whole of Jesus’ message. “Not my will, but thy will be done.”

And there’s more:

“Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”
“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”
“Into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

Complete and utter devotion to God, complete and utter surrender to the will of God. This is the prime directive, according to Jesus.

Jeff Cooper once said, sarcastically, that peace is easy to obtain: all you has to do is give up. He was speaking in a military context, and implying that peace is overrated if it involves surrender to the enemy. That kind of peace is only a species of slavery. King David, a military man himself, maintained that those who “surrender to the Lord” will “inherit the land”, which sounds suspiciously like what Jesus said at the Sermon on the Mount about the “meek”.

Interesting thing about the word “meek”. The original Koine Greek word is praus, which is an adjective often used to refer to a horse who has been tamed, its rebellious spirit broken, and who has surrendered to the will of the master. Hmmm. So David and Jesus were saying the exact same thing. The only way to inherit the earth is to surrender yourself to God’s will. And 'tis no bad thing to be a slave of God, so the Christians say.

Now back to peace. Must not be such a bad thing, either, if Jesus is the Prince of it. “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall receive peace.”

The word for “peace” in Hebrew is shalom. It is written with the three consonants S-L-M, which form its root. Now, in Semitic languages, you can form all varieties of related words from the same tri-consonant stem just by inserting different vowels. Write S-L-M in Arabic, and add different vowels, and you get salam, which of course means the same as shalom. The two words, written in their respective languages, look practically identical (see illustration).

Add a different combination of vowels to the stem and you get the word salim “security”, which David references in a different psalm when he says that “the Lord in my rock and my security.” And to achieve peace and security, all you need to do, say David and Jesus, is surrender. More vowel juggling and you get aslama, which is the verb “to submit or surrender”, and its noun form, which is, wait for it… islam.

So linguistically speaking, in utterly surrendering his life to the will of God, Jesus was a Muslim.

In fact, a billion Muslims do count him as one of their greatest prophets. And I doubt Jesus would have too many issues with Muslim hygeine, dietary habits, modest mode of dress (most Muslim women dress like his mom, after all), their immense charitable donations, and the abjection and piety of their worship (he would doubtless take issue with the idea of suicide bombers and terrorists, but most Muslims think suicide bombers and terrorists are scumbags, too. They just don’t make the news).

One wonders, though, what he would make of the ostentation of the Vatican. Or, for that matter, of the conspicuous consumption of so many “Christians” in the United States.

[/quote]

There’s clever, and then there’s too clever.

166

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If you read the gospels, you will find that Jesus never literally declared himself a god either (and “he who has seen me has seen the Father” doesnt count), but that doesn’t prevent two billion people from worshipping him all the same.

[/quote]

John 8
48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed”
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.
50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death.
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are”
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

John 10
32Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me”
33The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, ‘You are gods’
35If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,
36can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, “I am the Son of God”
37If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me;
38but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize [and understand] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

John 20
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

167

[quote]pushharder wrote:

No, no, no, you’re not getting away with this centuries old, tired mantra of “I just can’t intellectually digest the Trinity so watch me argue against the deity of Christ.” You’re too smart for this, Snarq.[/quote]

But aparently not smart enough to guess that at least one person would disregard the word “disregard”.

“…and he answered, ‘you have said so.’” Mark 15:2

Because a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity was irrelevant to the point I was making. Hence the word “disregard.”

169

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And every demagogue, from Darius to Caesar to Hirohito to Mao, has demanded to be worshipped, in some cases literally, as a god. Deities don’t have to be supernatural: animists worship deities that are entirely natural, and a pagan may worship personifications of natural forces and celestial bodies. As has been said ad nauseam, a monotheist is simply an atheist who is willing to make one exception. [/quote]

Yes, as a young Christian martyr encouraged the lions on in their frenzy and holding his composure and acting like a man as they ate him the Romans demanded the blood of St. Polycarp, the whole week as the Christians were being eaten the crowd would chant, “Down with the atheists.”

As St. Polycarp was brought into swear by Caesar or be fed to the lions. He was asked to say once, “Down with the atheists.” So, he turned his back to his inquisitor and waved his hand at the crowd in the colosseum and pronounced of the pagans, “Down with the atheists.” He told him again plainly, I am a Christian. And, once more he was offered to “change his mind.” He retorted, changing our minds from good to worse is not an option for us. St. Polycarp was quickly set on fire in front of the colosseum for his indomitability in the face of death.

So, yes pagans considered us atheists as they fed us to the lions. There are Early Church Fathers that agreed in that “sense” we were atheists, but only because pagans were atheists of the One True Lord.

I’m not sure what’s the point of all this, I helped start a Freethought Alliance at my uni, of course they wouldn’t allow me to continue to be an exec because I had a conversion and believed in one God, I pointed out that it was much fewer than pagan Rome. I was more of an atheist than 9 out of 10 religions, but they rejected that explanation. So, I guess I’m not very atheist unless you’re context is pagan Rome. Are you a Roman Pagan? Or, maybe Norse?

170

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]lucasa wrote:

…A fundamental aspect of science is that truth is unknowable. Moreover, even if there is a/the truth and it is knowable; the vicious, random, and ad hoc nature of evolution kinda precludes the notion that we’ve somehow evolved to know it. And the belief that we evolved to know or somehow find the truth is pretty profoundly religious in and of itself…
[/quote]

Indeed.[/quote]

Lol. Or, you’re an engineer or an actual scientist. I still think atheism is a mental disease (not saying you’re a bad person) it just doesn’t make sense to me how a group of people who supposedly is all about the “science” base everything off of biology – biology from about the last 20 years not to boot – (which is basically history over a really long period) but forget to you know…look at physics/engineering and even philosophy.

If I answered on any of my engineering or physics tests that the “fundamental aspect of science is that truth is unknowable,” I would have failed that course. Why, because that is a false and ridiculous statement. The fundamental aspect of science is that truth is knowable. If it was not, why even look in the first place it would be pointless. All your results from any kind of study would not be worth the paper it is printed on because we can’t know that it is correct. Even stating “A fundamental aspect of science is that truth is unknowable.” Would be useless, because how do you even know there is someone there to hear you, how do you know you’re even there to say it?

171

[quote]Karado wrote:
Can anyone answer on why there NEEDS to be a essentially a 330 Ton Penis smack dab in the middle of Vatican Square
whose brief history of it is explained below? Enquiring minds want to know.
Thank you.

“The Obelisk in St. Peter?s Square in the Vatican City is not just ANY Obelisk. It was cut from a single block of red granite during the Fifth dynasty of Egypt to stand as Osiris? erect phallus at the Temple of the Sun in ancient Heliopolis (Ἡλιούπολις, meaning city of the sun or principal seat of Atum-Ra sun-worship), the city of ?On? in the Bible, dedicated to Ra, Osiris, and Isis. The Obelisk was moved from Heliopolis to the Julian Forum of Alexandria by Emperor Augustus and later from thence (approximately 37 AD) by Caligula to Rome to stand at the spine of the Circus. There, under Nero, its excited presence maintained a counter-vigil over countless brutal Christian executions, including the martyrdom of the apostle Peter. Over fifteen hundred years following that, Pope Sixtus V ordered hundreds of workmen under celebrated engineer-architects Giovanni and Domenico Fontana (who also erected three other ancient obelisks in the old Roman city including one dedicated to Osiris by Rameses III?at the Piazza del Popolo, Piazza di S. Maria Maggiore, and Piazza di S. Giovanni in Laterano) to move the phallic pillar to the center of St. Peter?s Square in Rome.”
[/quote]

Because it was in the center of the circus where St. Peter was martyred crucified upside down. So, when when Pope Sixtus V built St. Peter’s Square he moved it to the center of the square. And, it’s not a phallic pillar, it is a Obelisk which comes from obeliscus or “in the shape of a spear.”

You can read more here: http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk.htm

P.S. Where did you copy and paste that lovely chunk of text from?

172

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
There are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Muslims. (Lot of differences too just so I am clear) Only Muslims chose to not adapt to modern culture. Prime example of what I am talking about is the so called Health and Prosperity Gospel. As in, if you are a Christian you will be rewarded by God with money and good health. It flies directly in the face of basic biblical teachings but it is one of the fastest growing Christian messages out there right now. There are some more but I could derail this thread really easily with the rest of them.[/quote]

Actual Islam is the fastest growing Christian heresy, even faster than the health and prosperity movement. Nevertheless, both are heresies and should be shut down at every possible point.

173

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

One wonders, though, what Jesus would make of the ostentation of the Vatican. Or, for that matter, of the conspicuous consumption of so many “Christians” in the United States.

[/quote]

It may step on a few R.C.'ers toes but I am with you on this one.

There is ostentation within Protestantism too but nothing on the scale of the Vatican and its satellites.[/quote]

Well, what you call ostentation, I call giving glory to God. Those displays of ostentation are gifts to God. I understand, it is difficult to understand when you don’t worship the Father in the fullness of the Eucharist. So a grand present like St. Peter’s Square just seems like we’re spending money on ourselves, but we believe St. Peter’s Basilica holds Jesus himself…so we built him a nice house (think of Mary pouring 300 denari worth of oil on Jesus feet and Judas protesting about it…got to ask what your motives are). I understand, why on earth would you build God something so nice…but, hey God gave us the ability so we gave it back to him. If someone took St. Peter’s away from the Catholic Church, we’d just build God a bigger better house. That whole sacrificial giving thing.

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.

176

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Actual Islam is the fastest growing Christian heresy, even faster than the health and prosperity movement. [/quote]

Worldwide, yes. Although it looks as though the Latter Day Saints (a religion with more in common with Islam than with any other Christian sect/denomination/heresy) are gaining ground at a faster rate in the United States.

Interesting. How, where, and by whom, in your estimation, should these Christian heresies be “shut down”?

It occurs to me that the health and prosperity folks, with their soft, materialistic lifestyles, would be a bunch of pushovers if it came to a scrap. The Swiss Guards would ride them down like grass.

Against the Muslims and the Mormons, especially if they teamed up (and they might, in a pinch, if they heard someone was coming to shut them down), you might have your work cut out for you. Better call in the Irish Republican Army for this one.

And as for telling one heretic from another in the melee, I wouldn’t sweat it. Your battle cry can be neca eos omnes, diabolus suos agnoscet!

177

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how does one measure these things? By total amount of charitable donations and offerings collected worldwide, or by amount actually spent on the aforesaid widows and orphans? Also, if the Church is in first place, who is in second, and by how much are they lagging behind?

178

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I’m not sure what’s the point of all this, I helped start a Freethought Alliance at my uni, of course they wouldn’t allow me to continue to be an exec because I had a conversion and believed in one God, I pointed out that it was much fewer than pagan Rome. I was more of an atheist than 9 out of 10 religions, but they rejected that explanation. So, I guess I’m not very atheist unless you’re context is pagan Rome. Are you a Roman Pagan? Or, maybe Norse?[/quote]

Nope, neither Norse, Roman, or any other species of Pagan.

The point of all this is the point you most eloquently helped make: that anyone can be an atheist (or an infidel or heretic, for that matter) depending on one’s point of view. Don’t believe in my god? You are an atheist. Don’t practice my religion? You are an infidel. Practice my religion, but not the same as me? You are a heretic.

Put this in the mouth of anyone on earth and it will be equally true.

And for the record, the Freethought Alliance sounds pretty disingenuous, and misnamed. After all, it was free thoughton your part that led to your conversion, was it not? Nobody forced you to convert. Ironic, though, for a Catholic to be excommunicated from an ostensibly atheist organization… for heresy.