BDSM and Religion

[neci]

i have to give props to the Hindu's and their erotic scultpures... mmmmmmmm.... it may not be BDSM, but, fuck me please.

 

[Ravenwind]

I am looking at this in the arena of comparative theology. By the trappings, language, and structure of the Christian faith, it is not monotheism. Jesus is deified. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost business is jibba jabba trying to maintain a single godhead when, in reality they are distinct entities in their own writing, and are prayed to differently (Well, the Holy Ghost isn't, but that is a whole other ballgame).

To understand the concept of the trinity... consider this... to my children, I am "Mom". They see a side of me that I would never show anyone here on this forum, nor to those on my own forum- they see the merciful, loving, caring, forgiving, and nurturing aspects of me, and never see an ounce of competition, dominance, submission, or weakness (except in the face of spiders and other creepy crawlies). To those on my own forum, I am (insert gamer alias here). They see some aspects of forgiveness, nurturing, and caring... but they mainly see competitiveness, domination, no-nonsense, leadership, a take-charge attitude, and a painfully blond lack of common sense. And here, I am "Ravenwind". The submissive wife to my Husband, newb, curious, meek, outspoken on some topics but generally still overcoming lurker tendencies.

Each of these aspects are only part of the whole of me. It does not mean that I change who I am for groups of people, nor does it mean I am more than one person (realistically or schizophrenically). It is just me, expressing myself in a way that is appropriate to the time and place. I can be just as caring for someone here, as I am with someone on my own forum, as I can be for my kids. Likewise, same with being dominant, or submissive. In this sense, I am a creator/mother (of my kids), an admin/leader (of my forum), and a provider (of discussion). Just as God is capable of being a Creator/Father (of stuff/mankind), a Savior/Leader (to mankind/His disciples), and a Provider (of wisdom). Only my kids get to see "me" physically, everyone else sees "the pic representing my personality there"... my avatar... likewise, while only Moses got to see the Father's physical form, everyone else sees Him in His Son, or His Spirit.

(personally, I find the ice/water/vapor analogy to not quite cut it, because a portion of water cannot be all three forms at once [and therefore represents the modalism model], yet, at Jesus' baptism, all three were present at once... but, meh, semantics).

Yes, dialectically, god/Yahweh is the divine force behind Jesus, but Jesus is a distinct entity nonetheless. Zeus was the motivating force behind the Greek pantheon and fathered most of them. Many were human at one point and ascended to deity status. See Heracles as a popular example Odin and Thor similarly. Thor was a man before he was a god. A divine man possessed of the divine blood of his father, but still a man.

The difference between a demigod and Jesus is that demigods like Heracles were half-man half-god... more than man, but less than their progenitors. Jesus was fully both at once, again referring to my example above (it is not so difficult to believe I can be both "Mom" and "Ravenwind" at once, is it?).

The saints and Virgin Mary may be differentiated in writings, but the treatment is the same to an outside observer. Is a person praying to Mary? Are they sacrificing time and resources in hopes of garnering positive result or avoiding negative? Are the rituals and prayers different? They may explain it how they wish, but from an alien and comparative perspective, it is worship, and worship of multiple distinct entities.

Please take note that there *is* a difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. In the eyes of the Protestant, Mary is no different than any other "pretty decent people" of the Bible, but not worthy of prayer, special reverence, or obeisance. And under most circumstances (with the possible exception of a commercialized version of "Saint Nicholas"), we don't recognize "Saints" as Catholics do.

And insofar as disparagement goes, it's only disparagement if someone wishes to take offense to it. I am not critiquing the religion, just the idea of attaching the term "monotheism" to a faith that has multiple entities being actively worshipped. Personally, I don't recall the term "monotheism" showing up in the bible.

"I am the Lord your God...you shall have no other gods before Me" - Exodus 20:2. Close enough to be considered a monotheistic statement. And certainly, the word "monotheism" doesn't show up, but then again, neither does the word "bible" show up in the bible. The thing is we, as people, tend to use singular words to describe conceptual ideas or mass phrases... Sure, I could say "the mass collection of every canonical book and letter that defines the Protestant Christian belief", but "bible" is a lot easier. Likewise, I could quote Exodus 20:2 every time I mean to say "God's statement of His oneness"... but the word "monotheism" sufficiently covers both of those phrases well enough.

 

[Homburg]

To understand the concept of the trinity... consider this... to my children, I am "Mom". They see a side of me that I would never show anyone here on this forum, nor to those on my own forum- they see the merciful, loving, caring, forgiving, and nurturing aspects of me, and never see an ounce of competition, dominance, submission, or weakness (except in the face of spiders and other creepy crawlies). To those on my own forum, I am (insert gamer alias here). They see some aspects of forgiveness, nurturing, and caring... but they mainly see competitiveness, domination, no-nonsense, leadership, a take-charge attitude, and a painfully blond lack of common sense. And here, I am "Ravenwind". The submissive wife to my Husband, newb, curious, meek, outspoken on some topics but generally still overcoming lurker tendencies.

These are aspects of an existing personality. Jesus and Yahweh are not represented this way. Aside from perhaps idle musing, or serious dementia, your "Mom" side and your "Ravenwind" side do not have conversations. Jesus was known to pray to Yahweh, ask questions, receive guidance, etc. So unless you are attributing more schizophrenia to your faith, I will stand my ground that, from an outsider's perspective, Jesus and Yahweh are compartmentalised entities.

(personally, I find the ice/water/vapor analogy to not quite cut it, because a portion of water cannot be all three forms at once [and therefore represents the modalism model], yet, at Jesus' baptism, all three were present at once... but, meh, semantics).

The semantics become important. If all were present at this point, the implication is that they were not all present at other points, else why mention it? If they are not always present, this lends creedence to compartmentalised, distinct entities.

The difference between a demigod and Jesus is that demigods like Heracles were half-man half-god... more than man, but less than their progenitors. Jesus was fully both at once, again referring to my example above (it is not so difficult to believe I can be both "Mom" and "Ravenwind" at once, is it?).

I'm sorry, and please don't take this wrong, but this is the sort of jibba-jabba I was talking about earlier. This is flowery rhetoric that provides exactly zero meaning or explanation, and is not even internally consistent.

Jesus was less than Yahweh. His power was sharply limited, as was his prescience.

Please take note that there *is* a difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. In the eyes of the Protestant, Mary is no different than any other "pretty decent people" of the Bible, but not worthy of prayer, special reverence, or obeisance. And under most circumstances (with the possible exception of a commercialized version of "Saint Nicholas"), we don't recognize "Saints" as Catholics do.

Well aware, and not once has Protestantism been mentioned by me.

"I am the Lord your God...you shall have no other gods before Me" - Exodus 20:2. Close enough to be considered a monotheistic statement. And certainly, the word "monotheism" doesn't show up, but then again, neither does the word "bible" show up in the bible. The thing is we, as people, tend to use singular words to describe conceptual ideas or mass phrases... Sure, I could say "the mass collection of every canonical book and letter that defines the Protestant Christian belief", but "bible" is a lot easier. Likewise, I could quote Exodus 20:2 every time I mean to say "God's statement of His oneness"... but the word "monotheism" sufficiently covers both of those phrases well enough.

Monotheism, by the very word itself, implies one, single god. The phrase "You shall have no gods before me," (emphasis added) accepts both the existence of other gods, and that worship occurs of those gods. And it in no way forbids the worship of other gods, simply making certain that no god is to be placed higher. There is zero implication of monotheism in that specific (and famous) line. Simply preeminence.

Christianity is the victim of its' own marketing. In trying to modify itself to sway more (Celtic, Rus, Norse, Roman, etc) converts to its' side, Christianity accepted and absorbed so much pagan ideology, tradition, customs, holy days, etc that it is hardly recognisable as coming from the same root from whence sprang Judaism. The idea that the trinity (which is not present in Judaic writings to my knowledge) are one is an attempt to cleave back to its' monotheistic roots. Unfortunately, so much poly- and heno- theistic concepts have been suborned that it is just not possible without resorting to flowery rhetoric with no semantic or logical content.

 

[unregistered]

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

*Turns up the TV and pours a big goblet of eucharistic wine*

I love this show: Theological Ultimate Fighting!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, and I get that this is just my personal preference, BDSM done well is akin to sexual theater; it’s as much about the theme, mode and set dressing as the sex, especially where fantasies are concerned. I had a very casual relationship with a sub for a few years who was very into religious themes and fantasies. For her, it was a sort of gothic aesthetic (gothic, not goth). She claimed once that it was the ultimate acceptance of her sinful desires. She wasn’t just wallowing in lust, she was doing so while –at least to some degree- committing Blasphemy. I figured if the price I had to pay for a scene with the young lady in question was a bit of prop building/buying and a few days work to set the stage, it was worth it.

I miss that girl… I built a very nice crucifix especially for her; sold it with great reluctance. There have been others who shared her kink, but not her passion for it. But I digress…

Please. Please. Please. Digress away.

 

[Ravenwind]

These are aspects of an existing personality. Jesus and Yahweh are not represented this way...Jesus was known to pray to Yahweh, ask questions, receive guidance, etc...

Good points there, but it is a premise that needs to be expanded upon. Now, consider the idealized concept of Master and slave, where the Master is the initiator of thought, and the slave is the one to enact it... the two share identical goals in all things- what the Master desires is what the slave desires. Two separate people, yet, for all intents and humanly purposes, they are of one mind. The slave knows his Master's will at all times, as he's been there long enough to know what is good and bad in the Master's eyes.

Now, there are new slaves to teach, and the Master has relegated the duty of teaching the new ones how to be good slaves to the original slave. So he leads by example... he shows them the things he knows are the right way. Later, he explains why he does it that way, so the pattern is learned first, then reinforced by the logic behind it.

Again, a personal example... I am a slave to my Husband. There is nothing that he wants that I don't want, and vice versa. We are so close, you might as well come up with some name like "Bennifer" or "Natebecca" to describe us (unfortunately, our names don't quite roll off the tongue like that)... we are of one mind, yet two bodies. Now, we have kids who we want to emulate us, however, I am the one to teach them general life skills (while my Husband teaches them 'guy stuff'). So we teach them by example, in ways they can understand and easily grasp. Then, as they get older, comes the logical explanation of "why we do what we do".

Now, tie this in with the previous example. (Warning: largely oversimplified and slightly irreverent example follows). So, you've got God sitting there... He's looking at people, and facepalming Himself. He decides He's gonna go down there and teach them the right way to do things. Well, due to what happened waaay back in Exodus, He's not about to let people look straight on at Him, so, He picks a form that people wouldn't think as being out of the ordinary. He opts the "everyday average joe" look, so that people aren't going to follow him 'cuz He's sexy, or strong, or rich, or anything like that, but rather, they focus on His words... He leaves most of His Godly powers up in Heaven, so He doesn't get a bunch of kiss-asses like the Pharisees following Him around simply because He has power to crush them like bugs. He just wants people to "get it"- Focus on God, not on money, not on power, not on attractiveness, not on friends or family or self, not on rules and regulations, or other matters of the flesh. Focus on God, and the rest will come on its own.

So, He, as Jesus, gets people to follow Him around, and they ask Him questions, like "how do we pray?". So, He explains them the right way by showing/telling them, and then reinforces it by His own actions even when they don't ask questions. Everything He says or does is to point people on how to "get it"... even His very last words before He died, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was a call to get people to understand, as he had quoted the people's greatest king, David, during his trials, proving that everything He said and done was true.

It is still the same person, just simply seen in a way that "we can get".

The semantics become important. If all were present at this point, the implication is that they were not all present at other points, else why mention it? If they are not always present, this lends creedence to compartmentalised, distinct entities.

It was a mere quibble about the fallacy of the example, as it implies modalism (any given amount of H2O is either steam or water or ice, but cannot be more than one at once), as opposed to triunity ("all the H2O on earth" is a better example, but less easily explainable as a talking point- it exists as steam, water, and ice simultaneously, but regardless of what form you see it or where or when, it is still, chemically, H2O). And, honestly, that was directed to JMohegan, but I forgot to quote it... not you. ^_^ I know, I fail. lol. ANYWAAAAYYYY....

I'm sorry, and please don't take this wrong, but this is the sort of jibba-jabba I was talking about earlier. This is flowery rhetoric that provides exactly zero meaning or explanation, and is not even internally consistent.

Jesus was less than Yahweh. His power was sharply limited, as was his prescience.

Not really. When I arm wrestle with my kids, I don't use the same strength as I do when arm wrestling my Husband. If I want to seem "on their level", I'm not gonna give my 100%... but I will use just enough for them to know, "you've still got a ways to go, but you can attain this". Doesn't make me less than what I fully am, but I 'empty' myself of my 'power', so they are not overcome by 'all that I am'. When I'm with my Husband, I will give 100% and so will he, and (left-handed) we are equals.

Likewise, because Jesus was more focused on having people listening to His words, as opposed to following him just because He did miracles, He kept it to the 'simple stuff', water into wine, raising the dead, calming the storm... if He turned a molehill into a mountain, or created a brand new species, or something extreme like that, He'd have people following Him because they were terrified of His power, kissing His ass because they wanted that kind of power, or following Him just because of *who* He was, as opposed to what He was saying... they'd all be missing the point.

Unlike Heracles and other demigods, who simply could not surpass their own power, knowledge, and presence into the omni- category, since they were already at 100%... Jesus could, but during His pre-resurrection life, chose not to... post-, however, is a different story.

Well aware, and not once has Protestantism been mentioned by me.

It was lumped into the earlier "the Christian faith", and so I assumed you thought it was such for both. Retracted, then. ^_^

Monotheism, by the very word itself, implies one, single god. The phrase "You shall have no gods before me," (emphasis added) accepts both the existence of other gods, and that worship occurs of those gods. And it in no way forbids the worship of other gods, simply making certain that no god is to be placed higher. There is zero implication of monotheism in that specific (and famous) line. Simply preeminence.

How so? Every other usage of the word "before" (with the obvious exception of time-related issues), means "in the presence of". "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD" - Genesis 18:12... That can be reworded as '...remained standing in the presence of the LORD'... "Now swear to me here before (in the presence of) God that you will not deal falsely with me" - Genesis 21:23... "...he will send his angel before (in the presence of) you so that you can get a wife for my son from there." - Genesis 24:7... "The men had been seated before (in the presence of) him in the order of their ages, from the firstborn to the youngest" - Gen. 43:32

To replace with 'preeminence', those verses don't make any sense... "Now swear to me here preeminently to God (but it's okay, you can swear to the tree, or to an idol, or even your shoe, it doesn't really matter) you won't deal falsely with me"... "he will send his angel preeminently to you so that you can get a wife for my son from there (but you better believe everyone else in the land is gonna hear they can get a wife for your son too)."... "The men had been seated preeminently toward him [the Pharoah's right hand man] in the order of their ages, from the firstborn to the youngest (the slaves got the best seats in the house, but the second most powerful man in the land got a decent seat too)"... Therefore, saying that "You shall have no other gods before Me" means anything other than "You shall have no other gods in my presence" is nonsensical, considering the Biblical usage of the phrase.

So, again with the obvious exception of time-related issues, where in the Bible does it use "before" to mean "be foremost"? As with good and proper exegesis, could you provide at least three verses where "preeminence, but not exclusion" (or any appropriate synonym or similar phrase) could be applicable? If you cannot, and this is an issue of eisegesis, then why does preeminence apply solely to that singular verse, yet ceases to make sense when used in other verses?

Christianity is the victim of its' own marketing. In trying to modify itself to sway more (Celtic, Rus, Norse, Roman, etc) converts to its' side, Christianity accepted and absorbed so much pagan ideology, tradition, customs, holy days, etc that it is hardly recognisable as coming from the same root from whence sprang Judaism. The idea that the trinity (which is not present in Judaic writings to my knowledge) are one is an attempt to cleave back to its' monotheistic roots. Unfortunately, so much poly- and heno- theistic concepts have been suborned that it is just not possible without resorting to flowery rhetoric with no semantic or logical content.

That it is, I cannot disagree there. It's because some church leaders are more interested in filling the pews, or filling their pockets, instead of filling people's hearts. But then it should be no surprise that when asked if people are saved, they reply "I don't go to church"- some people, even since way back when, equate "going to church/belonging to a certain denomination" with "salvation". So, it should be no surprise that the one holiday we were told to observe gets forgotten, and the hundreds of others that came from pagan religions and governments and events get remembered... salvation from the mouths of foolish men, at the cost of salvation from God... just to fill the seats, and to fill the coffers.

 

[Homburg]

Ravenwind, I have to go do some work, so I can't reply to this now. But I do want to say that I am really happy with this discussion. I know that you are a serious believer in this, and you do not seem to be taking offense at what I wrote. I appreciate that greatly, as I am just trying to discuss, not offend.

So, thank you. I will reply later when I get back from my field work.

 

[Ravenwind]

None taken whatsoever, Homburg. ^_^ Normally, when I have religious discussions, it tends to be with the "zealot atheists" (if you'll pardon the expression), so it's quite refreshing when I'm given a challenge from someone whose main points aren't reduced to ad hominems.

 

[Homburg]

Now, tie this in with the previous example. (Warning: largely oversimplified and slightly irreverent example follows). So, you've got God sitting there... He's looking at people, and facepalming Himself. He decides He's gonna go down there and teach them the right way to do things. Well, due to what happened waaay back in Exodus, He's not about to let people look straight on at Him, so, He picks a form that people wouldn't think as being out of the ordinary. He opts the "everyday average joe" look, so that people aren't going to follow him 'cuz He's sexy, or strong, or rich, or anything like that, but rather, they focus on His words... He leaves most of His Godly powers up in Heaven, so He doesn't get a bunch of kiss-asses like the Pharisees following Him around simply because He has power to crush them like bugs. He just wants people to "get it"- Focus on God, not on money, not on power, not on attractiveness, not on friends or family or self, not on rules and regulations, or other matters of the flesh. Focus on God, and the rest will come on its own.

So, He, as Jesus, gets people to follow Him around, and they ask Him questions, like "how do we pray?". So, He explains them the right way by showing/telling them, and then reinforces it by His own actions even when they don't ask questions. Everything He says or does is to point people on how to "get it"... even His very last words before He died, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was a call to get people to understand, as he had quoted the people's greatest king, David, during his trials, proving that everything He said and done was true.

It is still the same person, just simply seen in a way that "we can get".

Eh, this sort of argument goes along with the idea that Brahmin is the light behind all the masks of god, and that Yahweh is omnipresent. This is ex post facto argument trying, again, to redact the apostasy of wavering from the more solid and strict monotheism of Christianity's parent religion.

I have a hard time accepting lot of these arguments because they are inherently circular and based on the sole source with any meaning. They are, at core "The bible says it's true, so it must be true." They do not account for how the commonplace practice, and much of the text, holds them to be separate entities.

Then again, much of Christ in the bible does not quite jibe with what he probably would have looked like in direct observation. Heck, does anyone believe the honey-brown haired, blue-eyed white dude commonly portrayed is what Jesus would've looked like?

Historically speaking, Pliny the Younger's reference to Christians worshipping Christ as a God reinforces my point. From an external, non-invested perspective, it is not monotheism.

It was a mere quibble about the fallacy of the example, as it implies modalism (any given amount of H2O is either steam or water or ice, but cannot be more than one at once), as opposed to triunity ("all the H2O on earth" is a better example, but less easily explainable as a talking point- it exists as steam, water, and ice simultaneously, but regardless of what form you see it or where or when, it is still, chemically, H2O). And, honestly, that was directed to JMohegan, but I forgot to quote it... not you. ^_^ I know, I fail. lol. ANYWAAAAYYYY....

I'm with you. Understood.

Not really. When I arm wrestle with my kids, I don't use the same strength as I do when arm wrestling my Husband. If I want to seem "on their level", I'm not gonna give my 100%... but I will use just enough for them to know, "you've still got a ways to go, but you can attain this". Doesn't make me less than what I fully am, but I 'empty' myself of my 'power', so they are not overcome by 'all that I am'. When I'm with my Husband, I will give 100% and so will he, and (left-handed) we are equals.

Likewise, because Jesus was more focused on having people listening to His words, as opposed to following him just because He did miracles, He kept it to the 'simple stuff', water into wine, raising the dead, calming the storm... if He turned a molehill into a mountain, or created a brand new species, or something extreme like that, He'd have people following Him because they were terrified of His power, kissing His ass because they wanted that kind of power, or following Him just because of *who* He was, as opposed to what He was saying... they'd all be missing the point.

He healed leprosy. That's enough to get his ass kissed, dick sucked for days, and pussy til his dick fell off.

Unlike Heracles and other demigods, who simply could not surpass their own power, knowledge, and presence into the omni- category, since they were already at 100%... Jesus could, but during His pre-resurrection life, chose not to... post-, however, is a different story.

I don't really get this. I don't see how this claim could be made, either about Heracles or Jesus. How do you know that Heracles could not eclipse the power, or that Jesus became omnipotent post-crucifixion?

It was lumped into the earlier "the Christian faith", and so I assumed you thought it was such for both. Retracted, then. ^_^

No sweat. Christians in general still do this, but the Catholics are more serious about it. They absorbed their pagan ways and got jiggy with them. Then the Protestant Revolt happened and they excised a lot of the paganist stuff. But, again, compared to Judaism, it ain't monotheism.

How so? Every other usage of the word "before" (with the obvious exception of time-related issues), means "in the presence of". "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD" - Genesis 18:12... That can be reworded as '...remained standing in the presence of the LORD'... "Now swear to me here before (in the presence of) God that you will not deal falsely with me" - Genesis 21:23... "...he will send his angel before (in the presence of) you so that you can get a wife for my son from there." - Genesis 24:7... "The men had been seated before (in the presence of) him in the order of their ages, from the firstborn to the youngest" - Gen. 43:32

To replace with 'preeminence', those verses don't make any sense... "Now swear to me here preeminently to God (but it's okay, you can swear to the tree, or to an idol, or even your shoe, it doesn't really matter) you won't deal falsely with me"... "he will send his angel preeminently to you so that you can get a wife for my son from there (but you better believe everyone else in the land is gonna hear they can get a wife for your son too)."... "The men had been seated preeminently toward him [the Pharoah's right hand man] in the order of their ages, from the firstborn to the youngest (the slaves got the best seats in the house, but the second most powerful man in the land got a decent seat too)"... Therefore, saying that "You shall have no other gods before Me" means anything other than "You shall have no other gods in my presence" is nonsensical, considering the Biblical usage of the phrase.

So, again with the obvious exception of time-related issues, where in the Bible does it use "before" to mean "be foremost"? As with good and proper exegesis, could you provide at least three verses where "preeminence, but not exclusion" (or any appropriate synonym or similar phrase) could be applicable? If you cannot, and this is an issue of eisegesis, then why does preeminence apply solely to that singular verse, yet ceases to make sense when used in other verses?

This is an interesting argument. I will say that I am unwilling to dig out a bible (we've got a couple around here) and parse through a few thousand pages of text to find examples. It's not that important to me. But this is a really good take. I would assume that the word is used in multiple ways in the text simply because it is a common word and there's a LOT of text int hat book.

The proper cure for this question would be to examine the text in the greek form and see what words are used there. The greek is often more specific than english. I don't happen to have a linguist handy, else I'd ask that question, because damned if it isn't a good one.

Not saying that I buy that it means "presence" in that case. Just that it may well given the usage elsewhere.

That it is, I cannot disagree there. It's because some church leaders are more interested in filling the pews, or filling their pockets, instead of filling people's hearts. But then it should be no surprise that when asked if people are saved, they reply "I don't go to church"- some people, even since way back when, equate "going to church/belonging to a certain denomination" with "salvation". So, it should be no surprise that the one holiday we were told to observe gets forgotten, and the hundreds of others that came from pagan religions and governments and events get remembered... salvation from the mouths of foolish men, at the cost of salvation from God... just to fill the seats, and to fill the coffers.

As I said in another thread, Eusebius was well-known for his willing use of fraud and deception, and was a very influential voice in the church in his time. The history of the church is rife with it, and a vast amount of the imagery and symbols are direct lifts from polytheists that the church was attempting to convert. The cross-pollinisation of ideas happened in both directions, and the church (meaning the catholic church at the time) was pretty irrevocably modified by its' own greed and aggression.

The bible, and Christianity as a result, is like a religious wiki. Everybody and their brother had their fingers in that particular pie, and it has been modified so very many times, usually by anonymous sources. It was not even the main text of christianity early on, as that honour goes to the septuagint.

I think that is where the primary disconnect lies for me. It is utterly impossible that the hand of man has not been in the bible an untold number of times. The history of the church is rife with revisionism and editing, often for utterly secular reasons. To accept it as canon seems, well, not really in keeping with the teaching of the man supposedly at the center of the faith itself.

 

[Homburg]

None taken whatsoever, Homburg. ^_^ Normally, when I have religious discussions, it tends to be with the "zealot atheists" (if you'll pardon the expression), so it's quite refreshing when I'm given a challenge from someone whose main points aren't reduced to ad hominems.

I really, really dislike those sort of people, and usually argue against them out of principle.

 

[Ravenwind]

I have a hard time accepting lot of these arguments because they are inherently circular and based on the sole source with any meaning. They are, at core "The bible says it's true, so it must be true." They do not account for how the commonplace practice, and much of the text, holds them to be separate entities.

Avoiding circular arguments is no easy task, lol. Alrighty, then... Be forewarned, *intentional* circular argument follows. ^_^

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." - Isaiah 9:6

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1 ... "...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" - John 1:14.

""...My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."" - John 10:29-33 (consider surrounding verses as well, but the point being here)

"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." - Acts 20:28

The Bible says it's true, it must be true, or at least true enough. ^_~ Playful sarcasm aside, one cannot know the details of someone's personal life without seeing it written down... 2000 years from now, no one would know, by digging in the dirt, whether I liked leopards or lions, no one would know if I liked yellow or green... unless it was written down. And if only one book, written by my best friends, with my personal details survived... it would have to be accepted as truth. In this case, no amount of allegories or metaphors or archaeology will suffice... we *have* to go to the source to find out.

I mean, if there was some other way to prove Jesus is equivalent to the Father, other than by prophecies, statements by those who were intimately close with Him, and from out of His own mouth, I'd be curious to hear how.

Historically speaking, Pliny the Younger's reference to Christians worshipping Christ as a God reinforces my point. From an external, non-invested perspective, it is not monotheism.

The Romans weren't particularly familiar with monotheism themselves, so he would naturally relate it to polytheism. I hate cliches, but, "don't judge a book by its cover". It doesn't matter what it seems to be to outsiders... it's what it actually is, that matters. I can lump every MD together because I'm such an 'outsider' that I can't see the difference between how doctors define an psychologist and a psychiatrist... but it's not going to do me any good to see one, when I need to see the other. Only when I take the time, and do the studying, and learn for myself... when I choose to be 'on the inside', will I fully understand the difference.

He healed leprosy. That's enough to get his ass kissed, dick sucked for days, and pussy til his dick fell off.

lol Point taken. My point, though, was, He didn't do enough to show that He was God Himself... if He had, people would have followed Him for all the wrong reasons. But, He did do enough to be noticed as a miracle worker- He managed a balance between "those with the right reasons" and "those with the wrong reasons", and those who had the wrong reasons realized it and turned from Him.

I don't really get this. I don't see how this claim could be made, either about Heracles or Jesus. How do you know that Heracles could not eclipse the power, or that Jesus became omnipotent post-crucifixion?

Working backward on this one... first, you have to realize many things in the Bible are worked into symbology... consider them "Biblical idioms". Unless you understand an idiom, you won't understand the sentence. However, when you find an idiom used repeatedly, you can understand, from context, what the idiom means... likewise with symbols in the Bible. Some of them, pft, it'll come right out and tell you what the symbol means.

Regarding Jesus' omniscience... "...(These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range throughout the earth)." - Zech. 4:10, mirrored in Rev. 5:6 "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth."... likewise, with omnipotence, horns are the symbols of power (be it political, physical, or otherwise) [see the books of 1 Samuel, Daniel, and Revelation- I'm not gonna list them as there's too many]. And His omnipresence is linked with His omnipotence and omniscience. And 7 is the symbol of completeness. 7 days in the creation week, 7 priests/7 times/on the 7th day Jericho falls, Cain to be avenged 7 times, forgive 77x7 times, 7 year peace treaty, etc. So, therein, complete power, complete knowledge, complete presence.

Regarding Heracles, I realize my knowledge on Greco-Roman myths is fading on me, but I don't seem to recall him being in two places at once (whereas consider the situation surrounding the Rapture), powerful enough to essentially slaughter every last remaining person on earth just by opening a seal on a scroll, or knowledgeable enough to have his best friend tell him that he knows all things... tbh, I can only remember that he was essentially the same deified as he was mortal, except undying.

This is an interesting argument. I will say that I am unwilling to dig out a bible (we've got a couple around here) and parse through a few thousand pages of text to find examples. It's not that important to me. But this is a really good take. I would assume that the word is used in multiple ways in the text simply because it is a common word and there's a LOT of text int hat book.

biblegateway.com ftw. ^_~

The proper cure for this question would be to examine the text in the greek form and see what words are used there. The greek is often more specific than english. I don't happen to have a linguist handy, else I'd ask that question, because damned if it isn't a good one.

Not saying that I buy that it means "presence" in that case. Just that it may well given the usage elsewhere.

You do. Me. ^_^ though, admittedly, my Greek is rusty, and my Hebrew is... well... far worse off. lol I'll get back to you on that one, since I've not installed my multilingual Bible since I last reformatted. When I do, though, I'll go and do the digging. ^_^

As I said in another thread, Eusebius was well-known for his willing use of fraud and deception, and was a very influential voice in the church in his time. The history of the church is rife with it, and a vast amount of the imagery and symbols are direct lifts from polytheists that the church was attempting to convert. The cross-pollinisation of ideas happened in both directions, and the church (meaning the catholic church at the time) was pretty irrevocably modified by its' own greed and aggression.

The bible, and Christianity as a result, is like a religious wiki. Everybody and their brother had their fingers in that particular pie, and it has been modified so very many times, usually by anonymous sources. It was not even the main text of christianity early on, as that honour goes to the septuagint.

No argument there one bit. That's why I really hate it when people ask me what denomination I am... I can't really give an answer beyond "Fundamentalist in the truest sense of the word", and that, in of itself, has really horrible connotations I wouldn't touch. Everyone says "Sola Scriptura", but few actually mean it... 'tis why I picked up Hebrew and Greek, so I would know exactly what it says, without the outside influences of preachers and editors and revisionists.

I think that is where the primary disconnect lies for me. It is utterly impossible that the hand of man has not been in the bible an untold number of times. The history of the church is rife with revisionism and editing, often for utterly secular reasons. To accept it as canon seems, well, not really in keeping with the teaching of the man supposedly at the center of the faith itself.

The way I see it... like any good D/s relationship, the Dom gets what the Dom wants, regardless of whether the sub likes it or not. The Bible is what God meant it to be. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it says "obeisance" or "worship", "He" or "She", or whatever... God knows what is truth... those who screw up the truth are going to get what's due unto them... the whole point of the Bible are two simple phrases, and two simple actions... Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself... repent of your sins, and accept Jesus' sacrifice to be cleansed of them in the eyes of God. These four points, no matter whose grubby hands nitpick at the words, have stood the test of time, unchanged.

Everything else is just details.

 

[Homburg]

""...My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."" - John 10:29-33 (consider surrounding verses as well, but the point being here)

Wasn't at least part of this concept the idea of divinity in everyone though? God in in us all, and all that?

I'm trying to remember some of the stuff I've read on this, but there is argument that Jesus equating himself with Yahweh was revisionist stuff. Crap, I wish I could remember the text. It's been, oh, 15+ years since I actively studied any of this.

The Bible says it's true, it must be true, or at least true enough. ^_~ Playful sarcasm aside, one cannot know the details of someone's personal life without seeing it written down... 2000 years from now, no one would know, by digging in the dirt, whether I liked leopards or lions, no one would know if I liked yellow or green... unless it was written down. And if only one book, written by my best friends, with my personal details survived... it would have to be accepted as truth. In this case, no amount of allegories or metaphors or archaeology will suffice... we *have* to go to the source to find out.

I think this is the core of the other thread going, and the problem itself. The "most influential man in history" would likely have left more of a frikken record. It's frustrating.

I mean, if there was some other way to prove Jesus is equivalent to the Father, other than by prophecies, statements by those who were intimately close with Him, and from out of His own mouth, I'd be curious to hear how.

This is essentially my point. The argument delves into epistemology at this point, because the validity of the knowledge is at issue, how the knowledge came to be known is at issue, and how it can even be known at all is at issue.

I am much more comfortable with discussing the possible historical Jesus than I am what might have happened to Jesus post-death. We have a chance of understanding historical Jesus. We have no chance at all of understanding Jesus ascended.

To be frank, non-believer and all that I am, historical Jesus as a rabbi and political activist would be a Great Man without any shred of implicit divinity at all. One does not need to be religious to see the worth in his teachings. But when you get into conjecture as to what happened after death, I lose focus.

The Romans weren't particularly familiar with monotheism themselves, so he would naturally relate it to polytheism. I hate cliches, but, "don't judge a book by its cover". It doesn't matter what it seems to be to outsiders... it's what it actually is, that matters. I can lump every MD together because I'm such an 'outsider' that I can't see the difference between how doctors define an psychologist and a psychiatrist... but it's not going to do me any good to see one, when I need to see the other. Only when I take the time, and do the studying, and learn for myself... when I choose to be 'on the inside', will I fully understand the difference.

I disagree. Well, I agree that Pliny was a polytheist, and thus would've seen things through that lens anyway, but he was also familiar enough with the Jews to understand what monotheism was. Pliny was not exactly an uneducated bumpkin.

I have issues with the rest of the it. You do not need to personally experience something to study it, learn from it, and understand it enough to work with it. To use your MD example, a case in point would be a male OB/GYN doc. He'll never experience menstruation, but can certainly understand enough about it from studying as an observer to have excellent, in-depth knowledge. More actual knowledge, in fact, than a woman who simply undergoes the process. He may not feel the practice, but he can certainly understand the theory just fine.

What I am doing here is not oversimplifying and lumping all religions together. My end of the discussion is based on years of study, reading, learning, and speaking with first-party sources from a wide variety of faiths. No, I'm not the OB/GYN, but I'm also not some schmuck pointing fingers and calling names.

lol Point taken. My point, though, was, He didn't do enough to show that He was God Himself... if He had, people would have followed Him for all the wrong reasons. But, He did do enough to be noticed as a miracle worker- He managed a balance between "those with the right reasons" and "those with the wrong reasons", and those who had the wrong reasons realized it and turned from Him.

I think we're getting into epistemology and ex post facto reasoning here. If you (generic) believe you live in a deterministic universe and are simply living out god's plan, this could make sense in that he knew better than to use greater powers. But a deterministic universe with god's plan covering everything goes directly against god granting man free will.

Then again, I've never really grokked the deterministic planned universe concept anyway. *shrug*

Working backward on this one... first, you have to realize many things in the Bible are worked into symbology... consider them "Biblical idioms". Unless you understand an idiom, you won't understand the sentence. However, when you find an idiom used repeatedly, you can understand, from context, what the idiom means... likewise with symbols in the Bible. Some of them, pft, it'll come right out and tell you what the symbol means.

Regarding Jesus' omniscience... "...(These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range throughout the earth)." - Zech. 4:10, mirrored in Rev. 5:6 "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth."... likewise, with omnipotence, horns are the symbols of power (be it political, physical, or otherwise) [see the books of 1 Samuel, Daniel, and Revelation- I'm not gonna list them as there's too many]. And His omnipresence is linked with His omnipotence and omniscience. And 7 is the symbol of completeness. 7 days in the creation week, 7 priests/7 times/on the 7th day Jericho falls, Cain to be avenged 7 times, forgive 77x7 times, 7 year peace treaty, etc. So, therein, complete power, complete knowledge, complete presence.

This made absolutely zero sense to me.

Regarding Heracles, I realize my knowledge on Greco-Roman myths is fading on me, but I don't seem to recall him being in two places at once (whereas consider the situation surrounding the Rapture), powerful enough to essentially slaughter every last remaining person on earth just by opening a seal on a scroll, or knowledgeable enough to have his best friend tell him that he knows all things... tbh, I can only remember that he was essentially the same deified as he was mortal, except undying.

No, actually none of the Greek gods were undying, or even unaging. They ate ambrosia that grew around Olympus, and it gave them perfect health and prevented aging. Without it, they would age, wither, and die much like men.

That said, I am not arguing that the stories of Heracles show him as lesser than Zeus. He was per those stories. I was making another epistemological argument in asking how you could know this?

I am too much in accord with Hume. Anything statement of truth that is not expressed as a tautology must include at least a certain modicum of doubt or else lose relevance.

biblegateway.com ftw. ^_~

You do. Me. ^_^ though, admittedly, my Greek is rusty, and my Hebrew is... well... far worse off. lol I'll get back to you on that one, since I've not installed my multilingual Bible since I last reformatted. When I do, though, I'll go and do the digging. ^_^

That would be stupendously cool.

No argument there one bit. That's why I really hate it when people ask me what denomination I am... I can't really give an answer beyond "Fundamentalist in the truest sense of the word", and that, in of itself, has really horrible connotations I wouldn't touch. Everyone says "Sola Scriptura", but few actually mean it... 'tis why I picked up Hebrew and Greek, so I would know exactly what it says, without the outside influences of preachers and editors and revisionists.

That is the right way to do it. Linguistic control was long one of the strongest ways the Catholic church kept its' members in line. The priest would do Mass in latin and could say absolutely anything he wanted about it, as very few, if any, of his flock would be fluent in the language. That said, it is still questionable as to the validity of the greek translations out there. Admittedly, the bible is one of the books that we have the most ancient copies of, but those are still nowhere near source copies, as most of them are eight centuries younger than the original bibles.

The way I see it... like any good D/s relationship, the Dom gets what the Dom wants, regardless of whether the sub likes it or not. The Bible is what God meant it to be. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it says "obeisance" or "worship", "He" or "She", or whatever... God knows what is truth... those who screw up the truth are going to get what's due unto them... the whole point of the Bible are two simple phrases, and two simple actions... Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself... repent of your sins, and accept Jesus' sacrifice to be cleansed of them in the eyes of God. These four points, no matter whose grubby hands nitpick at the words, have stood the test of time, unchanged.

Everything else is just details.

A good friend of mine described it similarly. As he put it, there are only two rules: "Love no god before me," and "Love thy neighbour as thyself." Living by those rules be not too awful. Then again, as I said before, Jesus had some really great ideas. It's a shame that some many people that say they follow his teachings don't listen to those ideas.

 

[Ravenwind]

Wasn't at least part of this concept the idea of divinity in everyone though? God in in us all, and all that?

Some take it that way, yes... but that becomes an issue of cherry picking verses out of context, and not considering the Bible as a whole. Most of those don't even take into consideration the rest of the Gospels and the Epistles, let alone the Old Testament.

I'm trying to remember some of the stuff I've read on this, but there is argument that Jesus equating himself with Yahweh was revisionist stuff. Crap, I wish I could remember the text. It's been, oh, 15+ years since I actively studied any of this.

Meh, the Septuagint says the same thing. If it was revisionist, it had to have been done before that. Idk, though, I'd have to see the text.

I think this is the core of the other thread going, and the problem itself. The "most influential man in history" would likely have left more of a frikken record. It's frustrating.

So true... but seriously, look at a lot of big-name people in the past... the only ones who truly wanted that record of proof saying "I was here" were the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans (and by proxy, the Catholic Church, but again I digress). I mean, seriously, how much evidence is left from the Goths that sacked Rome? That was an unbelievably huge event... but I couldn't tell you the name of the guy who led them, let alone whose kid he was.

Now, keep in mind that Jesus led the life of a vagrant and a pauper. He even said He didn't even have a place to lay His head. Also, keep in mind that His disciples likewise gave up *everything* they owned, no matter how rich or poor they were prior to meeting Him. The only ones in contact with Him who had the kind of money to ensure His visage and memory would stand the test of time... were the ones who wanted Him dead and forgotten.

It is frustrating. I would give my right arm to show you proof. But, imho, it reinforces the concept of faith. To put it succinctly... even if someone rose from the dead right before their eyes, those who choose not to believe, still would not. No words will do, when an artifact is called for... no artifact will do, when a miracle is called for... no miracle will do, unless God Himself is among them... and even then they would call Him a liar to His own face. Such is the entire Bible nutshelled.

I am much more comfortable with discussing the possible historical Jesus than I am what might have happened to Jesus post-death. We have a chance of understanding historical Jesus. We have no chance at all of understanding Jesus ascended.

Well, we do, in a roundabout way. Eschatology... my own forte. ^_~ Buuut, that is a whole different can of worms entirely.

I disagree. Well, I agree that Pliny was a polytheist, and thus would've seen things through that lens anyway, but he was also familiar enough with the Jews to understand what monotheism was. Pliny was not exactly an uneducated bumpkin.

Very true, but he did not spend his time focusing on the Scriptures, nor their intricacies... He was a historian and a journalist for his era, not a professor of foreign religions.

I have issues with the rest of the it. You do not need to personally experience something to study it, learn from it, and understand it enough to work with it. To use your MD example, a case in point would be a male OB/GYN doc. He'll never experience menstruation, but can certainly understand enough about it from studying as an observer to have excellent, in-depth knowledge. More actual knowledge, in fact, than a woman who simply undergoes the process. He may not feel the practice, but he can certainly understand the theory just fine.

(*gripes* tell that to my ob/gyn from 20 years ago... must have gotten his license out of a cereal box.) True, but the reverse also applies too... Those on the inside generally know more about what they're doing than the guys whose specialties are merely documenting it, as opposed to actually doing it. How many reporters from the Gulf War know how to shoot an M4A1, what the origins of a salute are, or what the difference is between 7.62FMJ and 9mmHT rounds other than size?

Pliny was no bumpkin, that's for certain... but neither was he a Levite.

This made absolutely zero sense to me.

I didn't think so... I tried though. Okay... simple rewording. Jesus' omni-status is a concept taught in the Bible, but is not readily apparent unless you do your homework. ^_^

No, actually none of the Greek gods were undying, or even unaging. They ate ambrosia that grew around Olympus, and it gave them perfect health and prevented aging. Without it, they would age, wither, and die much like men.

Same difference. You knew what I meant though. Golden apples guarded by Typhon, and whatnot. Same as what he was pre-apotheosis, but undying.

That said, I am not arguing that the stories of Heracles show him as lesser than Zeus. He was per those stories. I was making another epistemological argument in asking how you could know this?

Simple. Did the stories say he was? If it didn't, he wasn't. If it did, he was. If they're conflicted, then go with the most reliable or likely source.

I am too much in accord with Hume. Anything statement of truth that is not expressed as a tautology must include at least a certain modicum of doubt or else lose relevance.

Ennhh... I find that too narrow of a train of thought. As an individual, I find lots of stuff relevant or irrelevant, whether they're expressed tautologically or not, with doubt or not. It might apply en-masse, but, on an individual level... nah.

That is the right way to do it. Linguistic control was long one of the strongest ways the Catholic church kept its' members in line. The priest would do Mass in latin and could say absolutely anything he wanted about it, as very few, if any, of his flock would be fluent in the language. That said, it is still questionable as to the validity of the greek translations out there. Admittedly, the bible is one of the books that we have the most ancient copies of, but those are still nowhere near source copies, as most of them are eight centuries younger than the original bibles.

Honestly, that's what inspired me to learn. Let's put it this way... I don't like being lied to or deceived. Knowledge is power, and truth is freedom... and if the wool is gonna be pulled over my eyes, it'll be at my own hands, no one else's.

But, from comparing modern Bibles to the earliest respective manuscripts like the Septuagint and Ethiopian codecies, very little has changed in regards to the points being made (of course, you have to consider translations, transliterations, and emphasized versions to really get the feel, in English, of what was said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

Consider the diaspora, after the fall of Rome. Some Jews went this way, some that way... when they started getting together in the late 1800's-early 1900's in the Palestine area, they compared their Torahs... only the slightest changes were made... where one would say "blood red", the other would say "crimson". Centuries upon centuries passed, and only a handful of words were changed (IIRC, it was only like 40 words), but even then, the meaning of the verse was retained. So, it gives me hope that, as much as humanity may screw up, the words of God doesn't change.

(And like yourself, I *really* wish I could find the source of that, but it's been a good 15 years since I've learned bits of trivia like that, and honestly, I wouldn't know where to begin to look... I don't have quite the bookshelf my dad does. lol)

A good friend of mine described it similarly. As he put it, there are only two rules: "Love no god before me," and "Love thy neighbour as thyself." Living by those rules be not too awful. Then again, as I said before, Jesus had some really great ideas. It's a shame that some many people that say they follow his teachings don't listen to those ideas.

QFT.

 

[YourCaptor]

The core idea was that 3000 years ago, left brain and right brain did not directly communicate. The thoughts that traversed between the two hemispheres were akin to hearing voices. So everyone was more or less functionally schizophrenic.

That just sounds ridiculously improbable.

About half our functions are contralateral. So if there was a communication breakdown we would have trouble doing things such as seeing, and working with our hands.

Not only that but the brain evolved in stages. The brain stem is totally fused, the cerebellum which is involved in high functions existed far before the cerebral hemispheres and must have been completely functional. Every level of our brain would have already been in existence before we where even walking on 2 legs. It’s simply been refined in its capacity. Essentially we have the same brain as a rat, turned up to 11 as far as thinking goes.

Actually the one thing that separates our brains from animals and lower monkeys are von economo neurons, which are found in the cingulate cortex. So far we know that this region is involved in decision making, error detection, emotion, anticipation of reward, empathy, and pain. As far as pain is concerned, its not only physical pain that it responds to, but social pain.

I would suspect that religion has something to do whit that, the cingulate cortex, not just because its involved in many higher functions that makes us human, but because the great apes we share it with have been observed “worshiping” some natural features.

Anyway, I also think it’s a fundamentally flawed assumption at work here. Almost all of the brain is symmetrical in function with a few exceptions. Just because there are 2 halves does not mean they are separate. That’s like assuming we learned to run because one leg started making bigger strides.

 

[Homburg]

That just sounds ridiculously improbable.

I was explaining it very ,very loosely. I would suggest looking to the source I mentioned. Or go here - http://www.julianjaynes.org

 

[Homburg]

Some take it that way, yes... but that becomes an issue of cherry picking verses out of context, and not considering the Bible as a whole. Most of those don't even take into consideration the rest of the Gospels and the Epistles, let alone the Old Testament.

I read more Old Testament than New. It had more... weight? Not sure how to describe it.

Meh, the Septuagint says the same thing. If it was revisionist, it had to have been done before that. Idk, though, I'd have to see the text.

I'll take your word for it. It's all *cough* greek to me.

So true... but seriously, look at a lot of big-name people in the past... the only ones who truly wanted that record of proof saying "I was here" were the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans (and by proxy, the Catholic Church, but again I digress). I mean, seriously, how much evidence is left from the Goths that sacked Rome? That was an unbelievably huge event... but I couldn't tell you the name of the guy who led them, let alone whose kid he was.

Alaric the 1st

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were all record-keeping, literate cultures. You know, like the Jews. And not like the Goths. Or Visigoths, Gauls, etc. The records we have of them are actually pretty serious, and come from the nigh-obsessive record-keeping Romans. They wrote reams and reams of information about their neighbours, subjects, slaves, customs, etc. Not so much on Jesus.

Now, keep in mind that Jesus led the life of a vagrant and a pauper. He even said He didn't even have a place to lay His head. Also, keep in mind that His disciples likewise gave up *everything* they owned, no matter how rich or poor they were prior to meeting Him. The only ones in contact with Him who had the kind of money to ensure His visage and memory would stand the test of time... were the ones who wanted Him dead and forgotten.

I would doubt this statistically, but, well, it's not safe to doubt that anyone with money would've been arrayed rather strongly against Jesus. He was as much apolitical activist and agitator as he was a religious figure.

It is frustrating. I would give my right arm to show you proof. But, imho, it reinforces the concept of faith. To put it succinctly... even if someone rose from the dead right before their eyes, those who choose not to believe, still would not. No words will do, when an artifact is called for... no artifact will do, when a miracle is called for... no miracle will do, unless God Himself is among them... and even then they would call Him a liar to His own face. Such is the entire Bible nutshelled.

Dude, somebody rising from the dead would suffice. I'd want it thoroughly checked to make sure said person was dead and not faking it, but a solid resurrection would suffice. Heck, walking on water would be enough for me. I'm pretty easy that way.

I've actually thought for quite a while that proof is antithetical to faith. That proof itself should not be something that a person of faith even remotely needs. It sure is a a balm to those of us with doubting hearts though.

Well, we do, in a roundabout way. Eschatology... my own forte. ^_~ Buuut, that is a whole different can of worms entirely.

Feh, if "Left Behind" happens, I'll be wondering where all the good Christians went right alongside Kirk Cameron.

Very true, but he did not spend his time focusing on the Scriptures, nor their intricacies... He was a historian and a journalist for his era, not a professor of foreign religions.

Tough to say. Education was a often a less specialised thing back then. I doubt that you could find someone of that era that could be a professor of foreign religions simply because such an animal did not exist. But a historian educated by the Roman empire would certainly have the best odds of exposure to different faiths.

(*gripes* tell that to my ob/gyn from 20 years ago... must have gotten his license out of a cereal box.) True, but the reverse also applies too... Those on the inside generally know more about what they're doing than the guys whose specialties are merely documenting it, as opposed to actually doing it. How many reporters from the Gulf War know how to shoot an M4A1, what the origins of a salute are, or what the difference is between 7.62FMJ and 9mmHT rounds other than size?

Pliny was no bumpkin, that's for certain... but neither was he a Levite.

I'm more or less with you to an extent. There are some things that are best learned by involved experience. But that is not the sole path to knowledge, and often lends too much involvement to allow for a sense of perspective to be maintained.

I didn't think so... I tried though. Okay... simple rewording. Jesus' omni-status is a concept taught in the Bible, but is not readily apparent unless you do your homework. ^_^

Symbology can be used to obfuscate as much as language can. This was the bread and butter of the Scientia Sacria after all.

Same difference. You knew what I meant though. Golden apples guarded by Typhon, and whatnot. Same as what he was pre-apotheosis, but undying.

I did, just felt like bringing up that particular detail.

Simple. Did the stories say he was? If it didn't, he wasn't. If it did, he was. If they're conflicted, then go with the most reliable or likely source.

Hmm, my epistemological standards are more rigorous. Then again, I am a non-believer. It goes with the territory.

Ennhh... I find that too narrow of a train of thought. As an individual, I find lots of stuff relevant or irrelevant, whether they're expressed tautologically or not, with doubt or not. It might apply en-masse, but, on an individual level... nah.

The short form is "You can be certain of nothing." I don't actually find that limiting at all. The only way to learn is to question.

Honestly, that's what inspired me to learn. Let's put it this way... I don't like being lied to or deceived. Knowledge is power, and truth is freedom... and if the wool is gonna be pulled over my eyes, it'll be at my own hands, no one else's.

Absolutely.

But, from comparing modern Bibles to the earliest respective manuscripts like the Septuagint and Ethiopian codecies, very little has changed in regards to the points being made (of course, you have to consider translations, transliterations, and emphasized versions to really get the feel, in English, of what was said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

Consider the diaspora, after the fall of Rome. Some Jews went this way, some that way... when they started getting together in the late 1800's-early 1900's in the Palestine area, they compared their Torahs... only the slightest changes were made... where one would say "blood red", the other would say "crimson". Centuries upon centuries passed, and only a handful of words were changed (IIRC, it was only like 40 words), but even then, the meaning of the verse was retained. So, it gives me hope that, as much as humanity may screw up, the words of God doesn't change.

(And like yourself, I *really* wish I could find the source of that, but it's been a good 15 years since I've learned bits of trivia like that, and honestly, I wouldn't know where to begin to look... I don't have quite the bookshelf my dad does. lol)

This is the same boat I'm in. It's been 15 years and I don't have access to the libraries I did then. Nor do I apparently have access to the same memory that I did then. Le sigh.

And, on related topics, the Sakyamuni Buddha has a similarly thin historical record. Sure, the monks got together in a big council just after his death to set down the teachings, his history, etc. We have all sorts of info about the Buddha as a result. BUT, and this is a big "but", it was all frikken oral history until four bloody centuries later. So lots of detail, but historical record? No, not so much.

 

[Ravenwind]

I read more Old Testament than New. It had more... weight? Not sure how to describe it.

I know what you mean. The whole "screw up one letter in transcription, and the whole copy had to be scrapped" sort of perfection the Hebrews/Jews had, and all the archaeological references associated with it, and whatnot.

Me... I feel you cannot fully understand the New without fully understanding the Old, and vice versa. The two are interlinked, the Old paving the way for the New, and the New explaining the Old.

I'll take your word for it. It's all *cough* greek to me.

lawl. Actually, of all the languages I've studied, Greek was the easiest to learn. There are so many English words with Greek roots, picking out similar words is easy (pharmacy, pharmakeia; democracy, demos/kratos), and all the 'filler words' like prepositions and quantifiers (like 'the') are so small, they're easy to learn too ('ton' = 'the'). The hard part is actually learning the letters. ^_~

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were all record-keeping, literate cultures. You know, like the Jews. And not like the Goths. Or Visigoths, Gauls, etc. The records we have of them are actually pretty serious, and come from the nigh-obsessive record-keeping Romans. They wrote reams and reams of information about their neighbours, subjects, slaves, customs, etc. Not so much on Jesus.

True on that... but how many details do we have about other garden-variety political activists, heretics, and criminals from back then?

I would doubt this statistically, but, well, it's not safe to doubt that anyone with money would've been arrayed rather strongly against Jesus. He was as much apolitical activist and agitator as he was a religious figure.

Well, consider two of the stories involving a couple rich 'average joes' Jesus met... one was a corrupt tax collector- he changed his ways and repaid everyone of every cent he took from them, and then gave half of what he had left away (essentially leaving himself poor, compared to what he was)... the other, a rich prince, who was told to give all his money away, and was unwilling to. The first no longer had the means to ensure He'd have notoriety, the other was probably too pissed and/or dejected to *want* Him to have it. Based on that, it's fair to assume that others with wealth reacted the same ways.

Then you have the Pharisees and Sadducees, who wanted Him dead, and their word was law as far as the Jews were concerned- I doubt any Jew who didn't follow Jesus would want to go against the Pharisees and risk excommunication. Then you have the Roman gov't who were, for the most part, uninterested in the local politics of the Jews- as long as they paid their taxes, who cares whether they viewed someone as a heretic or not. Only when the Pharisees demanded His execution as a criminal and a usurper did they take any interest... and again, as above, how many other 'garden variety' Roman criminals and political activists do we have record of?

Dude, somebody rising from the dead would suffice. I'd want it thoroughly checked to make sure said person was dead and not faking it, but a solid resurrection would suffice. Heck, walking on water would be enough for me. I'm pretty easy that way.

Hehehehe. Okay, then. Keep an eye on Damascus and the Golan Heights. One of these days, they'll be attacked, in retribution from an devastating attack against Israel, at evening... and even before morning, the entire population of those areas, both military and civilians, will be gone. ...Knowing this, when it happens, will it be enough for you?

I've actually thought for quite a while that proof is antithetical to faith. That proof itself should not be something that a person of faith even remotely needs. It sure is a a balm to those of us with doubting hearts though.

Even Thomas doubted... He had to stick his finger in Jesus' wounds before he'd believe He had risen. "You believe because you see. How much more blessed are those who believe, but have not seen," He told him.

I'm not 'the ideal Christian'. Far be it. When I didn't believe, I too needed proof. And a *lot* of it. So I studied eschatology... it's the damnedest thing to see it unfolding before your eyes in your own lifetime... and there's a bit left between now and that 'Left Behind' moment.

You ever see that one show where a guy gets a newspaper of what happens tomorrow, and he has to stop it from happening? It's the same for us. We don't have to be left guessing 'what happened' if we take the time to read the headlines the day before. Ugh, forgive me for waxing preachy.

...But a historian educated by the Roman empire would certainly have the best odds of exposure to different faiths....There are some things that are best learned by involved experience. But that is not the sole path to knowledge, and often lends too much involvement to allow for a sense of perspective to be maintained.

True, again to an extent, on both points. I've had this argument before, in regards to gaming... those of us who've been playing RPGs since the 80's define an RPG as something more based on statistics, numbers, decision making, and storytelling, while those who are more 'modern' gamers define an RPG as not about emulating the pen-and-paper experience, but rather, what p&p games provided in the imagination- all action, and less micromanagement (whereas we old-schoolers call them 'action-adventure' or 'RPG-lite' games).

I suppose both sides *can* be right... but in the end, what matters is what the developer called it, and not what us gamers, no matter how involved or uninvolved we are, define it as.

Symbology can be used to obfuscate as much as language can. This was the bread and butter of the Scientia Sacria after all.

True, but it's hard to confuse it when the definitions are already given to you beforehand.

The short form is "You can be certain of nothing." I don't actually find that limiting at all. The only way to learn is to question.

Ah, I was gonna say it didn't quite make sense as stated. There's many ways to learn, not just by the Socratic method. Passive learning, rote, experience, trial and error, study, cross association... understanding something, however, requires questioning.

And with many things, yeah, I agree, you can't be certain of some things (like, whether my clothes are dry or not- I wonder if Schroedinger had a dryer...)... however, with others... I can be 100% certain, there is no guesswork involved because it is that obvious (like, I just heard my dryer beep indicating that it's done). I think the difference lies, spiritually, is that "Without firsthand experience and the understanding to back it up, one cannot be certain of anything".

 

[yourmissl]

Just wanted to poke my head in and thank you for a great discussion of a difficult but fascinating topic.

Intelligent debate presented with civility and even dashes of humor.

How delightfully refreshing.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

http://www.reasonproject.org/images/gallery2/mbm-2.jpg

 

[FurryFury]

I find shades of ritualistic religion and kink go together well in my head.

Even in person, I've used it some. My husband enjoys worshiping at the "alter of woman" for instance and proving himself "worthy."

 

[Ravenwind]

Interesting pic... Under that model, what then, is the next logical step? If spirituality is as evolutionary as man is, then 'atheism' is truly as flawed a concept as everything prior to it, and therefore, cannot be right either.

^_~

 

[Homburg]

I know what you mean. The whole "screw up one letter in transcription, and the whole copy had to be scrapped" sort of perfection the Hebrews/Jews had, and all the archaeological references associated with it, and whatnot.

Me... I feel you cannot fully understand the New without fully understanding the Old, and vice versa. The two are interlinked, the Old paving the way for the New, and the New explaining the Old.

I cannot even imagine how a meaningful study of the New can be accomplished without first working through the Old. There's just too much foundation utterly absent without reading the Old.

lawl. Actually, of all the languages I've studied, Greek was the easiest to learn. There are so many English words with Greek roots, picking out similar words is easy (pharmacy, pharmakeia; democracy, demos/kratos), and all the 'filler words' like prepositions and quantifiers (like 'the') are so small, they're easy to learn too ('ton' = 'the'). The hard part is actually learning the letters. ^_~

I've often thought that might be the case. You don't spend as much time as I have reading philosophy without getting some clues on greek. Still, yeah, the letters put me off entirely. That and the only way I really get into language is a LOT of low level exposure, so it takes a load of time that I do not have.

True on that... but how many details do we have about other garden-variety political activists, heretics, and criminals from back then?

I doubt he would be considered garden variety. Not world-shaking, sure, but not quite humdrum common criminal. He had a few too many followers to just be some schmuck. Still, he was in what amounts to a backwater of the Empire, and in an area that was already difficult and filled with alien, non-sensical religions.

Well, consider two of the stories involving a couple rich 'average joes' Jesus met... one was a corrupt tax collector- he changed his ways and repaid everyone of every cent he took from them, and then gave half of what he had left away (essentially leaving himself poor, compared to what he was)... the other, a rich prince, who was told to give all his money away, and was unwilling to. The first no longer had the means to ensure He'd have notoriety, the other was probably too pissed and/or dejected to *want* Him to have it. Based on that, it's fair to assume that others with wealth reacted the same ways.

Then you have the Pharisees and Sadducees, who wanted Him dead, and their word was law as far as the Jews were concerned- I doubt any Jew who didn't follow Jesus would want to go against the Pharisees and risk excommunication. Then you have the Roman gov't who were, for the most part, uninterested in the local politics of the Jews- as long as they paid their taxes, who cares whether they viewed someone as a heretic or not. Only when the Pharisees demanded His execution as a criminal and a usurper did they take any interest... and again, as above, how many other 'garden variety' Roman criminals and political activists do we have record of?

Oh, I'm with you. Anyone with wealth would've have generally despised him for how upsetting he was to the status quo.

Hehehehe. Okay, then. Keep an eye on Damascus and the Golan Heights. One of these days, they'll be attacked, in retribution from an devastating attack against Israel, at evening... and even before morning, the entire population of those areas, both military and civilians, will be gone. ...Knowing this, when it happens, will it be enough for you?

No idea. It depends on how mundane the cause is. It is an interesting thing to watch for though.

Even Thomas doubted... He had to stick his finger in Jesus' wounds before he'd believe He had risen. "You believe because you see. How much more blessed are those who believe, but have not seen," He told him.

I'm not 'the ideal Christian'. Far be it. When I didn't believe, I too needed proof. And a *lot* of it. So I studied eschatology... it's the damnedest thing to see it unfolding before your eyes in your own lifetime... and there's a bit left between now and that 'Left Behind' moment.

Haven't people felt that the eschaton is imminent in quite a number of time periods since the writings of that particular part of the bible? Nihilism is a common drive in the psyche of man, after all.

You ever see that one show where a guy gets a newspaper of what happens tomorrow, and he has to stop it from happening? It's the same for us. We don't have to be left guessing 'what happened' if we take the time to read the headlines the day before. Ugh, forgive me for waxing preachy.

It's cool. You aren't being obnoxious about it.

True, again to an extent, on both points. I've had this argument before, in regards to gaming... those of us who've been playing RPGs since the 80's define an RPG as something more based on statistics, numbers, decision making, and storytelling, while those who are more 'modern' gamers define an RPG as not about emulating the pen-and-paper experience, but rather, what p&p games provided in the imagination- all action, and less micromanagement (whereas we old-schoolers call them 'action-adventure' or 'RPG-lite' games).

As a fellow gamer, and a fellow old gamer, I am even happier with you now.

I suppose both sides *can* be right... but in the end, what matters is what the developer called it, and not what us gamers, no matter how involved or uninvolved we are, define it as.

See, this is a fundamental area of disagreement, both in regards to gaming and faith. I see both as personal things, and what you, the individual, does with either is more important than what the developer intended. I have long been of the opinion that one's relationship with the divine must be inherently personal, else it is just public show.

True, but it's hard to confuse it when the definitions are already given to you beforehand.

Um, not so much. You gave some definitions in that passage that was jibba-jabba to me. Didn't help. More definition might've helped, but, wow, that was obtuse.

Ah, I was gonna say it didn't quite make sense as stated. There's many ways to learn, not just by the Socratic method. Passive learning, rote, experience, trial and error, study, cross association... understanding something, however, requires questioning.

"Knowledge that" versus "knowledge how", yes.

And with many things, yeah, I agree, you can't be certain of some things (like, whether my clothes are dry or not- I wonder if Schroedinger had a dryer...)... however, with others... I can be 100% certain, there is no guesswork involved because it is that obvious (like, I just heard my dryer beep indicating that it's done). I think the difference lies, spiritually, is that "Without firsthand experience and the understanding to back it up, one cannot be certain of anything".

Schrodinger wrote some neat stuff.

Anyway, no, not so much for me. 100% certainty is just not something I do. I accept that I will likely see the sun in the morning, but not 100% sure of it. I may die overnight, or the world could end or whatever. If I cannot be 100% certain of something like that, I'm certainly not going to be certain of matters utterly impossible to show empirically.

 

[Homburg]

Just wanted to poke my head in and thank you for a great discussion of a difficult but fascinating topic.

Intelligent debate presented with civility and even dashes of humor.

How delightfully refreshing.

I'm liking it

--

Interesting pic... Under that model, what then, is the next logical step? If spirituality is as evolutionary as man is, then 'atheism' is truly as flawed a concept as everything prior to it, and therefore, cannot be right either.

^_~

+1, lol

 

[neci]

*Turns up the TV and pours a big goblet of eucharistic wine*

I love this show: Theological Ultimate Fighting!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please. Please. Please. Digress away.

ahhhh... and to think it all started with Your love of naughty nuns and private confessionals.

pass the wine please!

 

[Ravenwind]

I cannot even imagine how a meaningful study of the New can be accomplished without first working through the Old. There's just too much foundation utterly absent without reading the Old.

...you wouldn't believe how many people that call themselves Christians can't even pronounce "Psalms" let alone have the foggiest clue as to what's in it. Then, when their faith is challenged, they have no recourse except to resort to saying "I dunno, I just believe it". Then there's those who discard the Old in favor of the New... and wind up not understanding why "this person said/did this or that", and what it means in the bigger scope of things.

I suppose it's a hint of Gnostic in me... but how can you know what you believe, if you don't know why you believe it? Imho, at least "because the Bible told me so" is better a reason than "I don't know, I just do".

I doubt he would be considered garden variety. Not world-shaking, sure, but not quite humdrum common criminal. He had a few too many followers to just be some schmuck. Still, he was in what amounts to a backwater of the Empire, and in an area that was already difficult and filled with alien, non-sensical religions.

So true. In the eyes of the Romans, He was no Brutus, though. Otherwise, the poets would've written epics or *something* about Him too.

Haven't people felt that the eschaton is imminent in quite a number of time periods since the writings of that particular part of the bible? Nihilism is a common drive in the psyche of man, after all.

Excellent point. But again, the *whole* of the Bible must be considered. For starters, a couple prophecies involve the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of Israel, and then its reformation (in a specific manner- that it would be reformed as a nation in a single day, and then wars would come, a means completely contrary to the formation of nations both in the past, and even unto relatively modern times).

Knowing that, end times could not come until *at least* both of those were fulfilled... meaning the Disciples would not see the end times (but the potential for *their* disciples to see it existed, when Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70AD, therefore creating hope for the second condition to be fulfilled)... however, the latter part of that bit didn't occur until 1948, when Israel was reformed in a single day (by a U.N. act), and then wars came (the conflict that occurred soon after, the 6 Day War, and so on).

In the past, every time someone cried out "The End Is Nigh", they didn't consider *all* of the conditions that need to apply before The End... usually it was just one or two things, or a small handful that fit. The world is currently in a state where *most* of those conditions have been met. That's why I brought up Damascus... it stands as a 'litmus test' in a way, as it is the longest continually inhabited city on earth... it's seen wars, but it has never been dehabitated, even despite the fact that it was one of *the* earliest settlements in existence (be it 'soon after standing upright' or 'soon after The Flood', it is *that* old). When Damascus completely falls... the rest of mankind will soon follow.

As a fellow gamer, and a fellow old gamer, I am even happier with you now.

/HUGS!!! Hehehehe

See, this is a fundamental area of disagreement, both in regards to gaming and faith. I see both as personal things, and what you, the individual, does with either is more important than what the developer intended. I have long been of the opinion that one's relationship with the divine must be inherently personal, else it is just public show.

Very true. But I kind of went back to the original concept of labelling it "monotheistic" or "polytheistic" on that one (likewise, I feel Space Rangers 2 is a 4x RPG, but the devs labelled it "Action & Strategy" on the box, so it's not really up to me on what to call it). But, you're right- in the end, it really is more about how we stand as individuals with our Maker, than what we say about it.

Um, not so much. You gave some definitions in that passage that was jibba-jabba to me. Didn't help. More definition might've helped, but, wow, that was obtuse.

*laughs at you and 'jibba-jabba'... favorite term?* I suppose it was rather cluttered.

Okay, in a spot in Revelation, it mentions:
* the lamb that looks as it's been slain (implying Jesus, being the Paschal Lamb, as defined in the Gospels, mirroring Exodus)
* having seven eyes (defined in the book of Zechariah, that eyes mean knowledge)
* having seven horns (horns representing power [either physical and/or political, depending on overall context], as defined in Leviticus and Daniel, respectively)...
* those eyes and horns are 7 spirits that go throughout the earth. (not exactly symbolic there, just an identifying statement showing that the symbolic eyes and symbolic horns are representing actual globetrotting spirits)

* 7 is used *everywhere* in the Bible to mean "completeness". (It's one of those things akin to an after-dinner mint, or the post-sex cigarette... you just know it when you see it, 'cuz you see it used so often).

Therefore, 7 eyes throughout the earth = total knowledge of everything everywhere... 7 horns throughout the earth = total power everywhere.

As such, that verse is a statement of his omni-status, even if not readily apparent, unless you've read everything else in the Bible. *Then* it becomes apparent.

I know it's still confusing, but I'd have to write a book to explain it with any further clarity.

Schrodinger wrote some neat stuff.

Agreed (and I could've sworn there was an e in there... *shrug*). And I *still* haven't checked my laundry yet. I'm terrible. lol

Anyway, no, not so much for me. 100% certainty is just not something I do. I accept that I will likely see the sun in the morning, but not 100% sure of it. I may die overnight, or the world could end or whatever. If I cannot be 100% certain of something like that, I'm certainly not going to be certain of matters utterly impossible to show empirically.

Good point. And therein, in the act of expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, lies faith. I've watched the movement of both the heavens and earth to 'just know'... I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm not gonna be around to hear 'bout how wrong I was... so I take it on faith. ^_~ So too with my faith in God.

Alaric the 1st

*Overcomes a serious blond moment, and realizes what that was about *just now**. Okay, fine, whose kid was he? lol ^_^