[geokker]

Have you ever heard of a "strawman" argument, geokker?

My point is that true faith prevents the acknowledgement of alternatives.

Jehova is a fire on the soul (Luke 3:16; Luke 24:32) that cannot be put out, not even by death, and whose spread will never cease.

What does all that mean? Yes, people will either adopt the words of others or invent their own belief systems from fear and the desire to conquer fear. The claim current mainstream religions have on thought and action I believe is weakening - people are getting smarter and are exposing the constraints, contradictions, corruption and segregation that seem inherent to religious institutions.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by geokker

...people are getting smarter and are exposing the constraints, contradictions, corruption and segregation that seem inherent to religious institutions.

Ahhh, good point. But a man's faith is only between him and God.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by MEL555

religion vs. religion ???

why debate?

the most obvious feature of
religion is religion vs. religion(arrogance)

which leads to war.

Religion is a business. $$$

The xtians dont even care about
the real Jesus.
They only care about the religion
that is built up around a Jesus
that THEY WANT.

http://www.wildapple.co.uk/writers/barbra.htm

The real Jesus was sane and rational.
.
.

Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and the Savior of the world, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." (John 14:6) Either He was correct, or He was a malicious liar, or He was seriously deranged. He could not have been a normal person of dignified intelligence and/or morality.

P.S. You're right the churches are lacking, but that only testifies to the truth that all are imperfect sinners in need of the forgiveness that Jesus claimed to provide.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and the Savior of the world, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."...Either He was correct, or He was a malicious liar, or He was seriously deranged. He could not have been a normal person of dignified intelligence and/or morality.

P.S. You're right the churches are lacking, but that only testifies to the truth that all are imperfect sinners in need of the forgiveness that Jesus claimed to provide.

Hmmm. I sense a lack of willingness to contemplate the implications of this thread. Your post flirts with it but runs away: How do you deal with the notion that "he may have been a liar or deranged"? How do you deal with others who say so based on their religious beliefs? How do you address your beliefs to those with opposing ones? I think its great that you can admit the possibility that your beliefs may be unfounded, but you don't seem to want to walk through what that means for how you interact with others. That's the point here.

Reminder "opposing views" in this thread are not "science." Question here is how we deal with for example, Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah (who is yet to come).

Cheers,
Buffy

[UncleAl]

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?
2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

1) Test of faith!
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

2) Northern Ireland, 30 Years War, War of the Roses, India and Pakistan, Crusades, Israel and Arabia... Roman Catholic male children routinely being sodomized by consecrated priests. Problems? Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods rain nothing but blessings upon their pious bloodthirsty adherents. Test of faith!

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Hmmm. I sense a lack of willingness to contemplate the implications of this thread. Your post flirts with it but runs away: How do you deal with the notion that "he may have been a liar or deranged"?

I sense that you did not grasp my meaning. I implied that given the New Testament account, the notion that Jesus was an upstanding normal man is an impossibility, since He claimed to be God's only Son and the promised Savior of the world. He was either right, or He was a lunatic. This statement is in response to the link posted by MEL555. Outside of the NT, of course, one only needs to either deny Jesus ever existed, or that he ever made such claims.

Originally Posted by Buffy

How do you deal with others who say so based on their religious beliefs? How do you address your beliefs to those with opposing ones?

Um... individually.

Originally Posted by Buffy

I think its great that you can admit the possibility that your beliefs may be unfounded, but you don't seem to want to walk through what that means for how you interact with others. That's the point here.

It seems I am indicative of all Christians here. How do I interact with others?

You want me to admit that I might be wrong about Jesus being Savior, and I simply don't believe that. However, I will not deride you (or anyone else) for disagreeing with me. And I am perfectly willing to walk interested people through my beliefs, and discuss any part of them.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Reminder "opposing views" in this thread are not "science." Question here is how we deal with for example, Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah (who is yet to come).

Cheers,
Buffy

Gladly, I thought you would never ask a theologically specific question. First of all, I'm not familiar with the Jewish case against Jesus. The lineage of David has been lost by the (prohesied — Matthew 24:1-2) destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Give me some time to dig up of some Jewish scriptures concerning the Messiah. In the mean time, consider Isaiah 53 and how odd it might appear in the Judaic context of Levitical traditionalism.

Originally Posted by UncleAl

1) Test of faith!
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

Hysterical. Drink sh*t and die. HAHA

Originally Posted by UncleAl

2) Northern Ireland, 30 Years War, War of the Roses, India and Pakistan, Crusades, Israel and Arabia... Roman Catholic male children routinely being sodomized by consecrated priests. Problems? Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods rain nothing but blessings upon their pious bloodthirsty adherents. Test of faith!

Test of faith in what? In man? In institutions? God did not ordain those acts. (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:38-48; Romans 13:9; James 5:9)

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Southtown

I sense that you did not grasp my meaning. I implied that given the New Testament account, the notion that Jesus was an upstanding normal man is an impossibility,.......He was either right, or He was a lunatic.....Outside of the NT, of course, one only needs to either deny Jesus ever existed, or that he ever made such claims.

Islam considers him a prophet for example, but he is not the son of God. Jews agree he existed and he may well have said all these things, but he was an egotistical rabble-rouser, and he was not necessarily crazy. So the either-or interpretation you give here is only accepted by a few.

Originally Posted by Southtown

It seems I am indicative of all Christians here. How do I interact with others?

With controlled equanimity that ofttimes betrays your views by accident! There are a wide variety of views among the Christians here, and I don't think its hard to see the differences in both approach and form, and the discussion of those differences is the point in this thread, which it seems by this statement you are denying. As a simple and concrete example, if you inspect some of the posts on the site there those that would disagree with your opinion that Catholics are Christians.

Originally Posted by Southtown

You want me to admit that I might be wrong about Jesus being Savior, and I simply don't believe that.

I have no desire to do so and that is not the point. The point is how you *interact* with those who do. So while you say:

Originally Posted by Southtown

However, I will not deride you (or anyone else) for disagreeing with me. And I am perfectly willing to walk interested people through my beliefs, and discuss any part of them.

This avoids the critical issue here of how the *differences* influence your world-view. Many religions contain teachings that "unbelievers" will not receive the same benefits of "believers", yet these religions in many cases come with lists of "exceptions" to handle the most egregious cases of "unfairness" that this causes, for example some Christian faiths support the notion that an exception is made for all people who died before Christ, and they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven anyway because they couldn't do anything about being born too soon. This is an example of a faith attempting to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "good" being treated as "evil" because it does not have the right beliefs.

Originally Posted by Southtown

First of all, I'm not familiar with the Jewish case against Jesus.

I pulled this quote because its another example of bias being drapped in unbiased clothing: you're making an assumption that there has to be a "case" against Jesus, when to many, he may well have been a magician and con artist like Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swagart. To some, its the sociological effect of being persecuted--as the Jews were by Christians for most of the past 2000 years from intermittent Pogroms, to Passion Play-like slander, to the Holocaust--and leaving an easy and natural opinion that any religion that has caused so much personal pain and death could possibly have been led by "the Messiah." Its obvious: its not that there has to be a theological reconning...

Keep thinking, keep posting.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

1) Test of faith!
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

And one for non-denom Christianity: admit yer sh*t stinks! HAHA

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Keep thinking, keep posting.

Cheers,
Buffy

K. Jewish prophesies concerning the Messiah written hundreds of years prior by differing authors... resurrected and glorified Psalm 16:10-11; utterances mirrored, hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:1,6-8,14-16; later ascension to heaven Psalm 68:18; given vinegar to drink Psalm 69:21; gifts from kings (wisemen) Psalm 72:10-11; the MVP (cornerstone) being rejected Psalm 118:22-23 (Isaiah 28:16); virgin mother Isaiah 7:14; from Galilee Isaiah 9:1-7; heals lame, sick, and blind Isaiah 35:5-6; flogging and derision Isaiah 50:5-6; wrongfully condemned intercessor Isaiah 52:13-53:12; 7+62 weeks (literally "sevens", denotes calendar change in ) or 483 (69 * 7) years from command to rebuild the temple (457 B.C.) to the Messiah (27 A.D.) Daniel 9:24-26; born in Bethlehem (the littlest of two by that name) Micah 5:2; riding on a colt Zechariah 9:9; betrayed for 30 peices of silver Zechariah 11:12-13; Disciples abandon Messiah at crucifixion Zechariah 13:7. (source: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.co...ophecies.shtml)

And attested by non-Christian historical records:

“Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...." (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.)

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.

Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."

This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.” — http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html#3

. . .

Comments from Dr. William Lane Craig, delivered to a college audience in December, 2001: “From the pages of the Jewish historian Josephus we learn that Jesus was executed by Roman authority under Pontius Pilate by means of crucifixion. And according to Tacitus, the Roman historian, he also names Pontius Pilate as the one responsible for Jesus' execution by crucifixion. According to both Josephus and a Syrian writer, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Jewish authorities participated in the events leading up to Jesus' execution, and they justified this as a proper undertaking against a heretic. So in extra biblical sources, Jewish and Roman, we have evidence for the trial of Jesus, the involvement of both the Jewish authorities as well as the Roman authorities, the mode of his execution, namely by crucifixion. And these facts are fixed so firmly as an anchor point in history no historical scholar, no historian denies these. On the contrary, they are so firmly fixed they actually become a criterion of authenticity.” — http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html footnote #4

Originally Posted by Buffy

Islam considers him a prophet for example, but he is not the son of God. Jews agree he existed and he may well have said all these things, but he was an egotistical rabble-rouser, and he was not necessarily crazy. So the either-or interpretation you give here is only accepted by a few.

In the context of MEL555's link, the lady was claiming to show this through the NT scripture. So non-NT believers would not apply, of course. And why would consent dictate anything?

Originally Posted by Buffy

With controlled equanimity that ofttimes betrays your views by accident!

What does that mean? Can you give me an example?

Originally Posted by Buffy

There are a wide variety of views among the Christians here, and I don't think its hard to see the differences in both approach and form, and the discussion of those differences is the point in this thread, which it seems by this statement you are denying.

I am not. I am simply trying to compare each scenario (when supplied) to the bible, since that is the supposed source of each and every variation. Anything stemming from original Christianity that does not comply with scripture was either added later or contorted, intentionally or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Buffy

As a simple and concrete example, if you inspect some of the posts on the site there those that would disagree with your opinion that Catholics are Christians.

I have not stated that opinion. You must have me confused. I am adamantly against the Catholic Church doctrine because it is not biblical. It is a culmination of Christianity, Greek mythology, and Emperor deism orchestrated by Constantine. Ironically, the name "Catholic" represents this theological blending quite well. And I find it sad that they represent mainstream Christianity on the big screen because they have a certain visual identifiability.

But to clear the air, institutions are not people. While the teachings are unbiblical, the members can be saved in spite of Catholicism because God knows their hearts, and I do not. It's always tricky to voice dissent against a teaching without being called judgmental.

Originally Posted by Buffy

I have no desire to do so and that is not the point. The point is how you *interact* with those who do. So while you say:

This avoids the critical issue here of how the *differences* influence your world-view. Many religions contain teachings that "unbelievers" will not receive the same benefits of "believers", yet these religions in many cases come with lists of "exceptions" to handle the most egregious cases of "unfairness" that this causes, for example some Christian faiths support the notion that an exception is made for all people who died before Christ, and they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven anyway because they couldn't do anything about being born too soon. This is an example of a faith attempting to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "good" being treated as "evil" because it does not have the right beliefs.

Because that's what some believe does not mean that's what the bible teaches. I address your example below.

Originally Posted by Buffy

I pulled this quote because its another example of bias being drapped in unbiased clothing: you're making an assumption that there has to be a "case" against Jesus, when to many, he may well have been a magician and con artist like Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swagart.

If one doesn't need a reason for not believing the testimony of Christ, then they aren't even considering the possibilty, and are themselves the biased ones. I myself, however, have reasons for believing, though, that I am willing to have scrutinized on its own merit, instead of taking the authoritative approach.

Originally Posted by Buffy

To some, its the sociological effect of being persecuted--as the Jews were by Christians for most of the past 2000 years from intermittent Pogroms, to Passion Play-like slander, to the Holocaust--and leaving an easy and natural opinion that any religion that has caused so much personal pain and death could possibly have been led by "the Messiah." Its obvious: its not that there has to be a theological reconning...

I don't know how to repeat this so you will understand. People keep referencing the "Church" as doing bad things in the past. My faith is not in a church, nor do my beliefs come directly from the mouth of a "superior" preacher. I believe the bible only and discern the beliefs of others (Christian and non-) by it. I don't even go to church, mainly because I am able both to read the damn book and interpret it myself.

To keep saying that the "Church" has done all these bad things does not impress me. How can an ideal be berated by critiquing those who don't adhere to it? If anything, the continued warfare of ALL mankind testifies to the bible's ACCURACY. That everyone is a SINNER in need of FORGIVENESS, and that the "righteous believers" are not those who are "good" but are the "repentant" and humble of heart. Of course, if we weren't judging the standard by the failed attempts to reach it, we'd be free to discuss these REAL theological intricacies such as the salvation of those who haven't heard of Jesus or God for that matter. (Romans 2:14-15; 1 John 4:16)

Until then, Cheers.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Southtown

...I am simply trying to compare each scenario (when supplied) to the bible, since that is the supposed source of each and every variation. Anything stemming from original Christianity that does not comply with scripture was either added later or contorted, intentionally or otherwise.

This is your approach, and I'm pretty sure I've got it. A critical difference between your approach and most others is that you do not rely on any external church or authority for interpretation of the scriptures. What you very clearly imply is that your own interpretation is the only one you consider to be the "truth", and while you do--I think correctly--state that all should go through this process themselves (a very scientific approach if you ask me!), this is *exactly* the issue you are avoiding: This approach still begs the question posed by this whole thread: how do you reconcile *your* interpretations from *someone elses*, given they have taken the exact approach you advocate? Yes, you can engage in debates with people citing various scriptural references, but how can you ever resolve this without at some point coming to the conclusion that the other person is wrong? And how do you justify the view that some interpretations which you consider invalid would lead to--in your interpretation--that person not "properly accepting Christ" and therefore be subject to the negative consequences thereof? You either *are* accepting the fact that *your* interpretation could be wrong, and thus that person is "accepting Christ", or *your* interpretation is the *only* one that can be had. Which is it? Or is it both in different cases and if so, how do you reconcile the inconsistency? As an example:

Originally Posted by Southtown

I have not stated that opinion. You must have me confused. I am adamantly against the Catholic Church doctrine because it is not biblical. It is a culmination of Christianity, Greek mythology, and Emperor deism...But to clear the air, institutions are not people. While the teachings are unbiblical, the members can be saved in spite of Catholicism because God knows their hearts, and I do not.

I never mentioned the church, but it was obviously necessary for you to bring it in to avoid the issue, but I meant "Catholics" not the church. As you say "only God knows their hearts," but how do you reconcile, when you get into a theological discussion with a Catholic, who *not* because the priest told them, but through their own honest Biblical scholarship, still afirm Catholic beliefs that are among those that you find incorrect, that they still might "pass judgement by God". I am not talking about continuing to debate them, I'm talking about once you've reached the point of disagreement: Do you honestly believe that because their beliefs do not align with your own scholarship that they will not pass or will they?

To broaden the debate to Judaism:

Originally Posted by Southtown

If one doesn't need a reason for not believing the testimony of Christ, then they aren't even considering the possibilty, and are themselves the biased ones.

You seem to be utterly dismissive of the very quotes you give in your post about the contemporaneous views of Jesus's movement, as well seeming to say that those who may well have *justified* bias against Christianity "get what they deserve." Do you honestly believe that Jews who have lived their entire lives persecuted by so called "Christians" have a reason--or what you seem to imply an *obligation* if they expect to be saved--to consider that "maybe Christ might be their savior?"

Originally Posted by Southtown

I don't know how to repeat this so you will understand. People keep referencing the "Church" as doing bad things in the past. My faith is not in a church, nor do my beliefs come directly from the mouth of a "superior" preacher.

I find your approach very noble and is extremely refreshing, but I don't know how to repeat this so you will understand: I'm *not* asking to debate specific theological points as to which is more correct. I'm asking you to consider what happens when two reasonable people who have done their own scholarship come to different conclusions, how do those people reconcile the fact that these differences exist and what are the consequences? Is it possible for both to be right? If one is wrong, how do you justify the negative consequences of the other belief given that the other equally pious and good person (a *specific person* not a "church"), is serious and possibly unjustified?

For a non-biblical source of context for this, my suggested reading is Melville's "Billy Budd".

Cheers,
Buffy