lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: R U a Christian?
Yes 38 51.35%
No 38 51.35%
Want be 2 2.70%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: The Christian Thread!
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 08-07-2006, 03:59 AM   #81
St. Jimmy
Registered User
 
St. Jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Streets of shame
Posts: 1,461
Look, All I'm saying is that, she says she's a Christian but she doesn't have any issues with the magic arts. Surely you'd think that there was something else to write about rather than wizards of all things.




The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no.
St. Jimmy is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:02 AM   #82
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Jimmy
Look, All I'm saying is that, she says she's a Christian but she doesn't have any issues with the magic arts.
It's just fiction!

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Jimmy
Surely you'd think that there was something else to write about rather than wizards of all things.
*Shrug*

People like her books. Why not write about wizards.
TK-8252 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:11 AM   #83
St. Jimmy
Registered User
 
St. Jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Streets of shame
Posts: 1,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
It's just fiction!

*Shrug*

People like her books. Why not write about wizards.
Fiction that goes against her "beleives"
She can write about wizards see if I care? But calling yourself a Christian and then forming a wizardry empire is blasphemous.
Third comandment dude, Exodus 20:7
"You shall not take the name of your LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."




The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no.
St. Jimmy is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:13 AM   #84
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I find it ironic that devout believers of one fiction are offended by another fiction in which no one actually believes is true. Credulity knows no bounds.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:25 AM   #85
St. Jimmy
Registered User
 
St. Jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Streets of shame
Posts: 1,461
Yeah thanks for that.




The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no.
St. Jimmy is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:51 AM   #86
Smon
Bizarro
 
Smon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 4,196
Current Game: Mega Man
Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Jimmy
Fiction that goes against her "beleives"
She can write about wizards see if I care? But calling yourself a Christian and then forming a wizardry empire is blasphemous.
Third comandment dude, Exodus 20:7
"You shall not take the name of your LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."
I think the bible was just a series of stories meant to help people live a better life but some people jsut took it way, way too far.

Who knows? Maybe some modern literature will be worshipped in three-thousand years...

FLASHFORWARD SEQUENCE...

Priest-And the lord did say, as he departed the material sphere, "UP, UP, AND AWAY!"
Followers-"Up, up and away, in the name of our lord and against the bald one..."


...plus I think God approves of a lot of this stuff. He has a very big sense of humor. Think about it: he appeared as a burning bush, he told an elderly man to build a boat and live with animals for forty days, and of course there's the platypus.

Plus God sounds like kind of a dick after you read the book of Job where God puts this guy through utter hell just to settle a bet with Satan.


I'm done putting links in my signature because every time I do it just links to some old crap I've long since stopped updating.
Smon is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 07:08 AM   #87
St. Jimmy
Registered User
 
St. Jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Streets of shame
Posts: 1,461
Hah! Yes, yes there is the platypus... As for the Bible just being a whole bunch of stories.. Don't think so. There's plenty of stuff in there that is in no way a story. And as soon as it was written it had followers throughout at least a thousand years! you can't tell me that as soon as it was written (as a story) people just disregarded it as a story and chose to base thier lives on it. With the burning bush, The way He chooses to appear has to do with symbolism, every time. You think He just chose to take Noah and his family on the ark for a joke? Really, come on. And actually, I've currently been reading the book of Job and He put Job through all that to prove things to satan, and It really opened Job's eyes. Job thought he knew God about as well as you can get to know God, and God let him know that he had so much more to learn, therefore, helping him and in the end having a 'happy ending'.




The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no.
St. Jimmy is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 08:09 AM   #88
Pho3nix
#rekt
 
Pho3nix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,370
Forum Veteran 
I think the Bible is just a life-guidance book, but people tend to take it too seriously.
It has alot of "advice" or rules that are quite obvious like It's not ok to kill another person etc. I don't need a fictional storybook to tell me that, I can figure that out for myself.


Last edited by Pho3nix; 09-04-2006 at 11:52 AM.
Pho3nix is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 08:30 AM   #89
Rexraptor2000
Versewalker
 
Rexraptor2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my comfy chair
Posts: 646
Current Game: Brotherhood
I'm Christian and I think that people can tend to take the bible a bit to seriouly also.
Rexraptor2000 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 09:00 AM   #90
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I seriously doubt that upon reading a fictional story book, anyone is going to go practice magic and wizardry. If they do, then, they're so damn stupid that they need to go to hell anyway.

After watching Star Wars, were people going to go learn how to be a Jedi and use the Force on people??
Uhhh... hopefully these people aren't serious.


I find it annoying when I read about mothers wanting Potter banned because of witchcraft, ect, and when asked if they've actually read the book, their response is "no." If Christians, mothers, or anyone else doesn't like something, they have every right to not partake in it.

Another reason why religion should be a personal thing and stay in the church, not in the government influencing legislation.
swphreak is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 09:42 AM   #91
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
schwager, your post echoes my thoughts exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Why did the Christians launch the Crusades and the Inquisition?
Medieval "Christians" were not Christians. The Church thought of nothing but its own gain. Medieval Christians didn't even have access to the Bible. That's how the Reformation came to be - because Martin Luther believed the Catholic church had strayed very far from the original principles of the religion.

Quote:
And yet divorce rates for Christians are higher than divorce rates for atheists/agnostics.
Just because a man declares himself a "Christian" doesn't mean he has any interest in the principles of Christianity whatsoever.

Quote:
Huh?? I'd never heard that before. IIRC, J.K. Rowling is a self-proclaimed Christian.
I think she's Orthodox Christian. I did some "research" () on Google and it looks like I'm wrong.
I don't think that Harry Potter is some kind of abomination, because it's really no different than a lot of books that have to do with magic out there -- even Lord of the Rings has magic, and it's highly recommended by a lot of Christians.

Pho3nix, I also consider the Bible as a life-guide. I don't worship it. It wasn't made for us to worship. It was made so that we don't forget the whole reason we're following this religion.
By the way, don't call in fictional. I'll understand if you don't want to believe Jesus performing miracles, but all of the stories you find in there are historically accurate, and any historian will tell you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smon
Plus God sounds like kind of a dick after you read the book of Job where God puts this guy through utter hell just to settle a bet with Satan.
God put Job through all that to test his faith. And Job did a much better job (no pun intended) than I ever would in that situatation.
And the only reason Satan even got to do all that -- the only reason Satan even got to speak with God -- was because God let him. You make Him sound like some insecure gambler.


Last edited by joetheeskimo5; 08-07-2006 at 09:57 AM.
Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 10:00 AM   #92
Rexraptor2000
Versewalker
 
Rexraptor2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my comfy chair
Posts: 646
Current Game: Brotherhood
I agree with you all the way joetheeskimo5.
Rexraptor2000 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 12:59 PM   #93
Astrotoy7
A Face from The Past
 
Astrotoy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,284
Notable contributor Helpful! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member 
ah. this thread is like those crop patterns designs... perfect concentric circles

the cantina used to be a refuge from religion threads...and now

Quote:
By the way, don't call in fictional. I'll understand if you don't want to believe Jesus performing miracles, but all of the stories you find in there are historically accurate, and any historian will tell you that.
um, no. So much of the Old Testament is mythology for starters. As for the Gospels, there are gaps and discrepancies between the "big 4". Then read the story of Jesus(Hazreti Isah) in the Kuran/Koran/Koroon/Qu'ran () and then St Thomas' 'gospel' and see what historical facts you can actually qualify...?

As a Muslim, Jesus' message to us from the Kuran is one of Brotherhood and Tolerance. The rest of it....well, there is no rest of it as far as Muslims are concerned. That was Jesus core message, and one which only he makes. Indeed, in the Kuran, Jesus could be described as the most human of all the prophets, with a message as pertinent today as it was back then.

I often get asked, "Why dont Muslims worship Jesus" and "Dont you believe in Jesus" etc. My answer is, and anyone who has read the Kuran properly will tell you the same. Jesus(Hazreti Isah) is very dear to all peace loving Muslims. I find it sad that "Christian" demoninations sometimes seem to forget the powerful message of Jesus teachings alone. This seems to pale against things like the Immaculate Conception/Resurrection etc. Take out these things and is Jesus message any less important ? No, of course not.

I think it is an important distincton the Kuran makes re-the Conception/Resurrection. Rather than go into it, I encourage Christians to read the Kuran and see what they get out of it

mtfbwya


Asinus asinum fricat

Last edited by Astrotoy7; 08-07-2006 at 01:26 PM.
Astrotoy7 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 01:22 PM   #94
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
Yeah, I think this should be in Senate Chambers

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 01:57 PM   #95
Halo_92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,068
ok i'll send a request.
Halo_92 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 02:05 PM   #96
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I must remind all involved, that much of the dissenting voices here come from the fact that the OP advertised the thread in his thread. If you don't want attention, don't advertise.

Also, none of the core claims of biblical mythology are historically accurate. Indeed, there is much that is historically inaccurate that its clear that the limited perspectives of its Bronze/Early Iron Age authors had more of a mind to create a set of fictions to propagandize their cults and maintain power than to tell "history."

And no historian I've ever met would agree that the bible is overall historically accurate, not even some of the theological historians I've read and met.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 02:25 PM   #97
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
I'm not only talking about Genesis, Exodus, etc. I'm mostly talking about the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, he did exist. And his death is very much historically accurate. I'm not expecting you to believe right off the bat that he was raised from the dead, but it did say that the Jews covered the story up (for understandable reasons), which is why you will find no mention of him being resurrected in most historical sources: because the only ones who found out were those closely involved.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 02:30 PM   #98
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
There are no historical references to Jesus that are independent and contemporary. All the extra-biblical references to Jesus were well after his alleged time and hearsay.

Borrowed from my friend, Iasion:

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

(The 2nd reference may be to ANOTHER Jesus.)

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


--------

In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 02:44 PM   #99
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
You have some very good evidence there. However, if you are right and if Jesus never existed, then what drove the early Christians? To quote my above post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
Furthermore, from a purely historical standpoint, you have to admit that Christianity spread incredibly fast after Jesus' time, despite heavy oppression from the Roman Empire. If Christianity is fake, then why did the early believers manage to spread Christianity across all of the known Mediterranean world, on pain of death, with frequent killings and imprisonments leaving them unfazed? Why did they not fear death?
Perhaps it was widespread hallucinations.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 03:20 PM   #100
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
You have some very good evidence there. However, if you are right and if Jesus never existed, then what drove the early Christians? To quote my above post:



Perhaps it was widespread hallucinations.
Well, what drove the early Muslims? They created the largest empire in history, albeit a short-lived one (darn Crusaders).
TK-8252 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 03:39 PM   #101
PoiuyWired
Unregistered User
 
PoiuyWired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,503
Fact, you are a christian if :
1) you believe in God
2) Jesus Being the son of God, and/or Binity (Trinity is not required, a concept for only 200 years old or so)

THAT IS ALL.

As for things in the Bible, Scriptures and the like, different sects/groups/etc have different interputation and/or selection of what is being Kanon and what is not. EVEN for the same line in the same verses there are varients dut to different source, menuscript and/or translation. Also remember that some books are at odds to each other, due to the will of humans, namely the translators and writers. Even the writer of old verses have different views on things, and they(and their followers) sometimes do not see eye to eye with each other.

Well, you add another bunch of "Traditions" to this like festivals, saint-worshipping and rituals.
PoiuyWired is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 03:47 PM   #102
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Well, what drove the early Muslims? They created the largest empire in history, albeit a short-lived one (darn Crusaders).
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:19 PM   #103
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.
Except for all that "burning people at the stake" nonsense.
TK-8252 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 04:50 PM   #104
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
That was a trademark of the Church of medieval times, and like I said, they didn't even know about the Bible or what it taught, so they can't even be considered "Christians".

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 05:15 PM   #105
grrrrrrrrrr7
Rookie
 
grrrrrrrrrr7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I AM PROUD OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Well, I don't go to church every weekend.............)
grrrrrrrrrr7 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 05:21 PM   #106
Pho3nix
#rekt
 
Pho3nix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,370
Forum Veteran 
Why do you have to be proud? Can't you be normal about it?
Sure i'm "proud" of an atheist, but I never incorporate the word "proud" when I say that i'm an atheist, i'm normal with it.

Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.


uhh..no? Christianity took over the pagan religions of Finland for example because of Swedish settlers that took the religion with them, we didn't choose christianity. It was the Swedes that forced it upon us and preached it to us.
And what about Native Americans for example? Spanish/Portugese settlers forced christianity to them aswell, which also lead to genocide.

-BLT Yes

Pho3nix is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 05:22 PM   #107
grrrrrrrrrr7
Rookie
 
grrrrrrrrrr7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pho3nix
Why do you have to be proud? Can't you be normal about it?
Sure i'm proud of being Finnish and an atheist, but I never incorporate the word "proud" when I say that i'm Finnish and an atheist.
Ever heard of scarcasm? (No offense)
grrrrrrrrrr7 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 05:50 PM   #108
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pho3nix
Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
They spread Islam through bloodshed. Christianity spread because people heard the message and accepting it by their own free will.


uhh..no? Christianity took over the pagan religions of Finland for example because of Swedish settlers that took the religion with them, we didn't choose christianity. It was the Swedes that forced it upon us and preached it to us.
And what about Native Americans for example? Spanish/Portugese settlers forced christianity to them aswell, which also lead to genocide.

In that post, I was referring to early Christians - i.e., those who lived during the 1st century. After there were less and less witnesses of Jesus' lifetime, the ideals of Christianity began to deteriorate and, in my opinion, Christianity wasn't re-awakened until the Reformation. Although there are some Catholic churches who I believe have the right idea, in general the Catholic church has given Christianity a bad name throughout the centuries. So quit trying to compare the old European Catholic church to today's Christians.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 05:54 PM   #109
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by joetheeskimo5
So quit trying to compare the old European Catholic church to today's Christians.
You're right - Medieval Christians were nothing like how modern Christians are. Radical Muslims today are much like how the Medieval Christians were. This is because Christianity was influenced by the secular humanism that came with the Enlightenment.
TK-8252 is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 09:46 PM   #110
St. Jimmy
Registered User
 
St. Jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Streets of shame
Posts: 1,461
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today.




The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no.
St. Jimmy is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 09:54 PM   #111
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Jimmy
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true.
Just get rid of the apostrophe.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 09:55 PM   #112
Smon
Bizarro
 
Smon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 4,196
Current Game: Mega Man
Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Jimmy
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today.
Yes it is accurate. Just look at all the cavemen and dinosaurs Adam and Eve saw.


I'm done putting links in my signature because every time I do it just links to some old crap I've long since stopped updating.
Smon is offline   you may:
Old 08-07-2006, 10:11 PM   #113
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
That's one thing that's disputed among Christians; about where the events of Genesis can be placed in relation to...well...yeah, cavemen and dinosaurs.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 02:06 AM   #114
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Jimmy
Actually the Bible is very historicly accurate. Even it's PROPHECIE'S (or however you spell it) came true. And yes, Christians from hundreds of years ago are different from the ones you see today.
Actually, the bible is very inaccurate, historically speaking. There isn't a single confirmed prophecy. There is plenty of evidence of literary manipulation to fulfill prophecies, but none that can be actually said to be prophetic.

I challenge anyone to cite a myth from the bible that they feel is 'historically' accurate. I'll gladly debunk it if it it's historically inaccurate. Exodus perhaps? The "prophecies" of Ezekiel? Resurrection? Virgin birth? Global flood?


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 08:19 AM   #115
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Global flood?
Actually, interestingly enough, the Mesopotamians had an ancient hero named Hammurabi, and one of the stories about him includes a great flood across the earth. I found it interesting that two different stories seem to be related.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 09:10 AM   #116
edlib
Close to the Edge
 
edlib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, MA., USA
Posts: 9,411
Current Game: DiRT 3; Forza 4
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
That's because they both stem from the same myths.

The ancient Israelites that wrote down and codified the Old Testament were products of the cultures around them (the cultures that they themselves came out of.) They heard the ancient myths of a "world-spanning" flood and incorporated it into their own stories. No need to make more of it than that.

The myth itself might be somewhat rooted in truth: A very bad localized flood that washed an entire tribe's village away (which, for a people who may not travel more than a couple miles from the place of their birth in their lifetimes, that would have been the ENTIRE world for them.) Perhaps the survivors managed to escape to the high ground, or on-board a boat with a couple of breeding pairs of livestock. The fact that they managed to survive while all their neighbors were wiped out could only be attributed to divine providence, and being favored by the deity. Instant mythology.


Native XWA.Netter (Nutter?)
edlib is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 09:28 AM   #117
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
Yeah, I agree that some Old Testament stories may not be exactly what they sound like. But I still hold to the fact that the New Testament is historically accurate.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 10:23 AM   #118
ChAiNz.2da
Brony 4 Life. Yo.
 
ChAiNz.2da's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tennessee (USA)
Posts: 6,845
Current Game: Minecraft MP: PynCraft|Tekkit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joetheeskimo
I found it interesting that two different stories seem to be related.
The same can be said about the birth of "vampires" and "vampirism"..

Both the idealogy and conceptions on the creatuers developed on 2 seperate sides of the world near the same era... with almost all the details matching... however, this tid-bit of info isn't going to affect my life and change my belief (or non-belief rather) of said creature/monster...

I'm no Christian (nor Emo or Goth for that matter.. hehehe), but I don't have anything against the ideas & concepts that the Bible is supposed to be portraying. However, if someone was to bring one in and try to teach me factual history lessons with it (Old or New Testament) .. I'm sorry, but I'd laugh in their face...


"Eagles May Soar, But Weasels Don't Get Sucked Into Jet Engines"


| Mods (FF) (DS) | Folding | SWK.com | FB: (LF) (Me) | Steam | The Herd |
ChAiNz.2da is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 10:42 AM   #119
Darth_Terros
Veteran
 
Darth_Terros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Korriban
Posts: 821
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joetheeskimo
Yeah, I agree that some Old Testament stories may not be exactly what they sound like. But I still hold to the fact that the New Testament is historically accurate.
But surely by saying that the Old testament has fallacies in it is going against the bible which is the word of god? and wouldnt saying god is wrong make you a very bad little christian?


Darth_Terros is offline   you may:
Old 08-08-2006, 10:53 AM   #120
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
The New Testament is the worst. It wasn't even written by those that witnessed the alleged christ. The earliest gospel was probably written around 70 CE, and the remaining gospels except John were based on this and another text that has yet to be discovered.

Errors and inconsistencies in the stories between the writers abound, most notably the ignorance one of the anonymous authors had about the geography of the region as he had Jesus zig-zagging around the Sea of Galilee in a manner that wouldn't have occurred.

Mark was the first gospel, and the anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew basically plagiarized Mark and Q (another gospel source).


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Star Wars > The Cantina > The Christian Thread!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:21 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.