• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Gibson's passion

 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

He also said, "No one comes to the Father except through me".


I would imagine that the concept of "the one true faith" is built into virtually all religions, but I don't recall anyplace that Jesus mentioned killing folks who chose to adhere to another belief system. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is fairly all-inclusive. It doesn't say "Love thy Christian neighbor, but back over your Islamic neighbor's ash cans with your 4x4 on your way to a lynching" -- although somehow, it has been read that way as often as not.
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:The atheists have a very sensible argument going for them: more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause. And that is very hard to refute.


Actually, it's not hard to refute at all. I know it's a claim about religion that gets thrown around a lot, but, tragically, it's about as far from the truth as you can get (at least in relation to Christianity).
If you think, as you say, that the atheists have a sensible argument, and the facts matter to you, please read the article I recommended above:http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/comparisons/realmurd.htm
[ March 01, 2004: Message edited by: Aurora Sandman ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I saw the movie and found it rather shallow. There is a lot of depth in the scripture, and while I understand that the movie covered just a short period of time, I think Mel Gibson missed his chance. I saw a lot of hatred thrown in my face, and not much of love. Some of you may say that this was the point of the movie, to which I'd say, it's not that simple. The atheists have a very sensible argument going for them: more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause. And that is very hard to refute.
Your right, I am "some" and I think this WAS the point. It was called "The Passion of the Christ". Not "The Teachings of the Christ". It is that simple. This movie was meant to show the suffering that Christ went through for us. If you want to know the teachings, read the Gospels/Bible. I think this is what MG's goal was. To make people curious and get them to read the Bible. There are enough movies available if you want the whole story.
Showing the amount of hatrid towards Christ in this movie was a key element. If the movie had been about love, peace, and harmony, and lets all get along, the point of what Jesus sacrificed (his very life through horrific pain and torture) could have been lost.
The fact that it was the Jews and Romans that hated him is a moot point. They were the only ones around. If everything had taken place in Africa it would have been the Africans that were nailing him to the cross.
Are you sure you didn't miss the point Eugene?
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

I would imagine that the concept of "the one true faith" is built into virtually all religions, but I don't recall anyplace that Jesus mentioned killing folks who chose to adhere to another belief system. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is fairly all-inclusive. It doesn't say "Love thy Christian neighbor, but back over your Islamic neighbor's ash cans with your 4x4 on your way to a lynching" -- although somehow, it has been read that way as often as not.


I can't think of a religion that teaches "...killing in the name of..." Usually, a teaching like this is a perversion of the ideals for the sake of someone else wanting power. This is one of the many reason I question the Sainthood of Joan of Arc.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause. And that is very hard to refute.
Nazi Germany. Stalinist USSR. Cambodia. Doesn't seem hard to refute at all.
 
Aurora Sandman
Greenhorn
Posts: 6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I saw the movie and found it rather shallow. There is a lot of depth in the scripture, and while I understand that the movie covered just a short period of time, I think Mel Gibson missed his chance. I saw a lot of hatred thrown in my face, and not much of love.


I haven't seen the film yet, but my guess is the hatred you saw was likely the outpouring of God's anger. This idea is explored in an article about "what the movie couldn't show": http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/the_passion.pdf
As to the exclusivity of Christ, you are correct that Jesus taught that he was the only way to "the Father." But, if you really think about it, that isn't necessarily all that controversial. Let me explain why.
Consider if you went to the doctor for some symptoms and she told you that you had a deadly disease, that if untreated, would render you dead in a year's time. You ask the doctor, "Is there a cure?" She says, "Yes." So you ask her, "What is it?" And she replies, "Well, it doesn't really matter, as long as you believe it sincerely."
Any of us would probably reject that kind of answer and seek out another opinion. (We might even queastion the first doctor's ability to properly predict our impending death!) Because, unless the condtion is make-believe, or a fantasy, we know that just taking any old medicine isn't going to cure the disease.
Christian belief is like that. Christians believe that man has a moral disease -- that we all do things that are morally wrong, even by our own standards. And if you stand in a court room having been found guilty, your only hope, (if no appeals reamain), will be in the form of either a light sentence, or a pardon, from the judge. It would be a pretty remarkable judge if he were to offer to serve your sentence for you. In fact, a pretty unbelievable judge. But let's say the judge was your loving dad, (a name Jesus taught Christians to call God)? That would still be remarkable, but maybe not as unbelievable. And let's say your dad the judge had already served your sentence, as Mel Gibson and company have portrayed it, wouldn't you trust that dad... that God? Would you really refuse his offer?
But, let's say, you don't like his offer. Let's say you're like the doctor in the first illustration, and you want to pick your own "medicine," so to speak. Well, I suppose you can, but don't be surprised if it doesn't hold any water with the judge.
Now, of course, what I've said holds no water itself if the story isn't true. But several years ago, after research and careful philisophical consideration, I concluded that, from what I can tell, it is very likely the Christian story is indeed actually true -- that it's factually correct, not make-believe. So I made my peace with that judge, asked him to forgive me, and am trying my feeble best to "follow him," as he told his disciples to do.
I guess, the bottom line is, I don't see any inherent controversy in thinking that a view you hold is a correct view, whether it be religious or otherwise. (Don't a lot of atheists think their assesment of the nature of things is correct? And doesn't a scientist often think his assessment of things is correct? Christians don't have the market cornered on this sort of thing. Just because someone holds to another belief with much sincerity doesn't mean I need to drop my evaluation that they are actually mistaken.)
Nothing like talking religion over a cup of Java!
[ March 01, 2004: Message edited by: Aurora Sandman ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 456
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
religion played a large part in shaping Hitler and in driving Hitler's actions.
I think the root causes of most wars relate to have not vs have. Religion is just one way that the have nots justify war against the haves.
If the middle east weren't so poor, would it be so easy for fanatics to recruit mulsims to blow themsleves up in the name of Islam? If religion did not exist, another excuse would be found for many of the wars that have taken place and that continue to take place.
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
religion played a large part in shaping Hitler and in driving Hitler's actions.
I think the root causes of most wars relate to have not vs have. Religion is just one way that the have nots justify war against the haves.
If the middle east weren't so poor, would it be so easy for fanatics to recruit mulsims to blow themsleves up in the name of Islam? If religion did not exist, another excuse would be found for many of the wars that have taken place and that continue to take place.


But you have to realize that it's not the true teachings of most religions to kill themselves and others in the name of all that is holy. This is a perverted swing people like OBL put on religions. The true teachings of Islam doesn't promote violence of any kind. And this is different than dying in the name of your God. There is a difference between a Martyre and a suicide bomber.
 
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I am curious about the Hindu cowboys here. Do you believe that your way is the only way to God? What do you think happens to Christians, Muslims, and Jews after death?


1. Fundamental tenet of Hinduism - There is no "One" God. All Gods are One. Imagine God to be like the mighty river Nile, each of Nile's tributaries is what people believe to be the mighty Nile in their land.. but in the end, the source is One. As a Hindu, I am not forbidden from praying to Jesus or Allah or Jehovah.. as long as I accept all are the same.
2. Law of Karma - As you sow shall you reap! What you do unto others will be done unto you.
3. Attainment of Moksha - After 6 rebirths, each Soul is provided with the ability to attain Moksha in the 7th rebirth when that soul occupies a human body. Based upon the actions of that soul in the 7th rebirth, a judgement will be made whether the soul can then attain immortality or will go through all 7 rebirths once again.
If someone knows better please correct.. this is whast has been taught to me through my family elders.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
religion played a large part in shaping Hitler and in driving Hitler's actions.
Not really, although he was attracted by German myths. His beliefs were based on genetics. Interstingly enough, he based his first genetics laws on laws in the US at the time. Hitler belived in a master race. he believed in evolution and that the german people were the pinacle of evolution. He saw the more primitive people such as the Jews (who he thought of as a race), the slavs, and the gypsies as a direct threat on Germany because they would pollute the gentic purity of the Aryan people. of course it was a load of crap but very littel of it came from any religious beliefs.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If the middle east weren't so poor, would it be so easy for fanatics to recruit mulsims to blow themsleves up in the name of Islam?
How is that the part of the world with the greatest fuel reserves on the planet is so "poor"?
Actually, the fanatics who followed bin Laden were not from poor families. Most of them were from middle class Saudia Arabian homes. But then the nature of any terrorist organization is to recruit spoiled, bored people looking for fulfillment in their lives.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
How is that the part of the world with the greatest fuel reserves on the planet is so "poor"?
BZZT! (Sound of light going on.)
I never thought of that, Thomas. Why is that? Why is it that Americans are supposed to lose their standard of living to raise the rest of the world? I don't see anyone telling the sheiks that line of bunk...
Joe
 
Aurora Sandman
Greenhorn
Posts: 6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
religion played a large part in shaping Hitler and in driving Hitler's actions.


Actually, the facts don't support that. He had distain for religion. Any "outward" alliances he had with it were for manipulative purposes.

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
I think the root causes of most wars relate to have not vs have. Religion is just one way that the have nots justify war against the haves.


I think the cause of most wars is the moral problem mankind universally has (rich or poor!).

In response to another poster's comments: If you study the teachings of Mohamad, it isn't benign. He was a warrior who spread his religion via forced conquest. (Is this deniable?) I'm honestly glad the majority of Muslims don't follow in his footsteps in that regard.
The content of the teachings of the major world religions have some similarities. But they also have important differences. For example, Hinduism teaches that people are reincarnated. Christianity and Judism and Islam and many others say they're not. Now, it's possible they may all be wrong, (that we just die, and everything about us turns to dust), but they can't all be right. Christianity says man is in need of a very specific Savior. I don't think any other religion makes that claim.
I once heard, and thought it was insightful: "You can argue that asprin and arsenic are essentially the same in that they both come in tablet form. But in such cases, it's the differences that are important, not the similarities."
I don't mean to argue against anyone's beliefs here. It's just to say that I think it's important to take such thoughts and ideas seriously and not lump them all into the same stew.
[ March 01, 2004: Message edited by: Aurora Sandman ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I am curious about the Hindu cowboys here. Do you believe that your way is the only way to God? What do you think happens to Christians, Muslims, and Jews after death?


How much I know about Hinduism (or better say how I perceive Hinduism), everything depends on one's Karma. I dont think anywhere it is taught that if you pray then only you will go to Heaven. There are stories in which even atheist goes to heaven.
And worst part, it is believed that there is no one way to reach God. Stories are there in which one finds path to God in music, dance, singing etc.
AW as one say, goal is same, everyone has interpreted in his own way and ultimate truth is only one, Death.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Why don't we just wait an see what happens after we die?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
PMcK: Based upon the actions of that soul in the 7th rebirth, a judgement will be made whether the soul can then attain immortality or will go through all 7 rebirths once again.
Do you mean that only 7th rebirth matters, and the actions in the previous 6 lives are not taken into consideration? I think you guys shamelessly stole this idea from Christians. The Christians have a great sense of humor, -- they say that if you are an angel and a saint, spreading goodness around the world all your life, but never accepting Christ, you go to hell for eternity. But if you are the Devil himself, you can cry on Christ's shoulder in the last second of your life, and up you go. The Christians like to talk about God's kindness and forgiveness, but we the atheists interpret it as omnipotent egocentricity. What seems to matter most to God is that he is loved. If I were a psychiatrist, I would hypothesize that He was taken away from his mother's breast prematurely. Ever since, he feels that his security is constantly compromized. What a shame.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Aurora Sandman:

The content of the teachings of the major world religions have some similarities. But they also have important differences. For example, Hinduism teaches that people are reincarnated. Christianity and Judism and Islam and many others say they're not. [ March 01, 2004: Message edited by: Aurora Sandman ]


There is some evidence that Christianity did not reject reincarnation for the first hundred or so years. The dogma that is now accepted as Christinaity was not universally accepted by many (most?) early Christians. See, ancient Rome did not have the separation of Church and State , so Emperor Constantine convened a council (which he influenced) and forced the Christians to come up with an unanimous dogma on Christ's divinity, salvation, etc because the religious dissent on these issues was ripping Rome apart. The religous dogma we have now is the result of politics...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 165
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
[b]I am curious about the Hindu cowboys here. Do you believe that your way is the only way to God? What do you think happens to Christians, Muslims, and Jews after death?


The most important concept and the sole objective of life in Hinduism is Moksha (Do google but in essence means getting mearged in the supreme being and getting free from the cycle of rebirths). The general idea is to "refine" yourself.
Various hindu texts mention that there can be many ways to attain moksha. This concept is what makes hinduism different from other "broker to heaven" religions. There are guidelines that will help you attain moksha but you are free to find your own path. People who do so then themself get their own followers...thus the numerous sects etc.
 
Terimaki Tojay
Ranch Hand
Posts: 165
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Aurora Sandman:
In response to another poster's comments: If you study the teachings of Mohamad, it isn't benign. He was a warrior who spread his religion via forced conquest. (Is this deniable?) I'm honestly glad the majority of Muslims don't follow in his footsteps in that regard.
[/QB]


They don't follow it because they are not allowed to otherwise I am sure they do want to follow it. Correct me if I am wrong but one of the basic tenet in Isalm is to make the whole world islamic (Ummah). In all the muslim countries the population of non-muslims has drastically reduced (and reducing) while in non-muslim countries it has increased. What does it tell you???
 
Terimaki Tojay
Ranch Hand
Posts: 165
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

The true teachings of Islam doesn't promote violence of any kind.


So they say. But the the teachings are so ambiguous that people have always been able to interpret them as they want depending on their purpose. That's the key thing. And that is the reason for mass forcible conversions and killing of infidels.
Ambiguity in the religion makes perfect marketing sense. All you have to do is to map the teachings to your own morals and lo..the gates to 'jannat' will be opened for you if you kill or convert infidels.
Have you ever thought, if a particular religion is so great why does it need forcible conversions or exterminiation of non-believers? Can't it win on its own goodness?
It is just another multi-level marketing scam...a lot more crooked and vicious than AmWay tough
[ March 02, 2004: Message edited by: Terimaki Tojay ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Do you mean that only 7th rebirth matters, and the actions in the previous 6 lives are not taken into consideration?
hmm.. how much I know, you can get Moksha even in first birth as human. But you cant get Moksha other than human.
And before one born as human he has to go, if I am not wrong then, 36 crore yonis(birth) as different kinds of insects and animals.
I think you guys shamelessly stole this idea from Christians.

Chalo good night.
 
Terimaki Tojay
Ranch Hand
Posts: 165
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
PMcK: Based upon the actions of that soul in the 7th rebirth, a judgement will be made whether the soul can then attain immortality or will go through all 7 rebirths once again.
Do you mean that only 7th rebirth matters, and the actions in the previous 6 lives are not taken into consideration? I think you guys shamelessly stole this idea from Christians.


Except that hinduism has been around since a lot earlier than christianity. So it's the otherway round.
BTW, i never heard or read about the 6/7 number of rebirths. As per my understanding there could be many. As long as you are not purified (whatever that means), there is no moksha.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 382
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
[b]I am curious about the Hindu cowboys here. Do you believe that your way is the only way to God? What do you think happens to Christians, Muslims, and Jews after death?
[ March 01, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]


This is what Hinduism says (briefly):
  • There is One God. Everything is His manifestation. The multitudes of gods & goddesses in Hinduism are symbols of the various powers of the One God. I believe it is the Rig Veda that says "God is one; the wise call It by many names". Each form of gods & goddesses in Hinduism is deeply symbolic.
  • Every thing in creation is made of God's spirit, which is God. This means everything. Every matter, animal, tree, bird, mineral, human being...

  • So the divine spark is in everyone.
  • Only human beings, because of the gifts of free will, intelligence, intuition & discriminative abilities (right from wrong, etc) have the ability to attain their fullest divine potential. And this is everyone's ultimate destiny, i.e. attaining the fullest divine potential - immortality.
  • Every human being has has this potential to attain immortality.
  • Because of free will, man (I use this word in a gender agnostic sense) makes good or bad choices & performs good or bad deeds. Each deed has an effect - man calls the effect good or bad depending on how he is affected by it. This is the theory of Karma. Karma basically means action and its effect. As you sow, so shall you reap. You sow seeds of good action (virtuous) you reap good/beneficial results. But you have the free will to do what you want.
  • One life time is not enough to attain the fullest divine potential. Also, one life time is not enough for all one's actions (good and bad) to fructify (manifest their effect). Some karmic effects are manifested in the same life, some aren't; if a man shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed by man. Many murderers get away with murders. This leads to the theory of reincarnation.
  • The karmic equation spans many life times.
  • The cycle of birth & death continues till man attains the the fullest divine potential - immortality in Spirit. This attainment is not a mere intellectual understanding but an intuitive one where in one realizes one's oneness with the entire creation (the entire creation being made of the same Spirit). This is the state where the soul can rightfully say "I & my Father in heaven are one".
  • There are multiple paths to God/immortality. But man has to put in effort to attain it.

  •  
    Greenhorn
    Posts: 12
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    Paul Mckenna,
    Are you posting under an assumed name?
    Your name sounds WASPy yet you seem to be espousing Indian values. Sounds wierd. Post under your real name.

    ---
     
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Posts: 13974
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    There is some evidence that Christianity did not reject reincarnation for the first hundred or so years.
    Since Christianity was based on Judaism and Judaism does not have reincarnation this is demonstratably untrue. The earliest Christians thought of themselves as Jewish and it wasn't until the destruction of the Temple that the break was complete.
    The dogma that is now accepted as Christinaity was not universally accepted by many (most?) early Christians.
    Which dogma are we talking about? I would bet that there isn't a single dogma of Christianity that is accepted by all Christians today.
    See, ancient Rome did not have the separation of Church and State , so Emperor Constantine convened a council (which he influenced) and forced the Christians to come up with an unanimous dogma on Christ's divinity, salvation, etc because the religious dissent on these issues was ripping Rome apart.
    Nicaea was called by Constantine in 325 AD. The main purpose was not to come up with a universal dogma for the Church but to respond to the question of Arianism. The Arians believed that Jesus was a secondary or inferior god. The Council condemned the heresy and created a formalized Creed. Constantine's major influence on this was to get the council called. It is worth noting that COnstantine was not a Christian at that time.
    The religous dogma we have now is the result of politics...
    If you believe that Ecumenical Councils are infallible then the statement is on its face absurd. If you belive otherwise then one can say that everything is politics so what is the difference.
     
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Posts: 1006
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ashok Raok:
    Your name sounds WASPy yet you seem to be espousing Indian values. Sounds wierd.


    Yep, I am an Hindu Indian. Havent you ever met a Christian Indian with a "WASPy" (I do find that acronym a wee bit offensive) name .. Get used to it!
     
    Ashok Raok
    Greenhorn
    Posts: 12
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    Dude, that's not your real name. Hindu's don't have christian names.
    [less than friendly comments deleted by moderator -JM]
    [ March 02, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
     
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ashok Raok:
    Dude, that's not your real name. Hindu's don't have christian names.


    Really?
    In any event, "Paul McKenna" is not the topic of discussion in this thread, nor should he be. The deleted comments were offensive and the moderators will tend not to tolerate such things. If you have something to add to the discussion, I suggest keeping it on topic, and not discussing whether or not a particular JavaRanch user fits your personal image of a Hindu or anything else for that matter.
    [ March 02, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
     
    Ashok Raok
    Greenhorn
    Posts: 12
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator


    Certainly, there are some exceptions but my point is that one shouldn't assume a name/character that does not reflect one's background especially in a discussion on religion because it can be misleading.
    Also, paul mckenna has not refuted the fact that the name is assumed.
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ashok Raok:
    Certainly, there are some exceptions but my point is that one shouldn't assume a name/character that does not reflect one's background especially in a discussion on religion because it can be misleading.


    Any assumptions made about a JavaRanch user are yours alone to make. When participating in online communities the lesson to be learned is to avoid such assumptions.

    Also, paul mckenna has not refuted the fact that the name is assumed.


    Nor should he. He is under no obligation to respond to your comments, and given the character of them, I certainly wouldn't.
    As I requested in my last post, let's please keep the discussion on the issues and not make it about individual JavaRanch users.
    [ March 02, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    Herb : There is some evidence that Christianity did not reject reincarnation for the first hundred or so years.
    Thomas : Since Christianity was based on Judaism and Judaism does not have reincarnation this is demonstratably untrue. The earliest Christians thought of themselves as Jewish and it wasn't until the destruction of the Temple that the break was complete.


    There is evidence to suggest that Jewish sects (Essenes and Pharisees) did believe in reincarnation at the time of Jesus's incarnation based on the comments of Josephus. The Jewish Old Testament does also suggest the pre-exitence of souls prior to pregnancy/birth. See the book, "Reincarnation, The Missing Link In Christianity".
    Also fascinating is http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_early_christianity.html
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:


    Herb : See, ancient Rome did not have the separation of Church and State , so Emperor Constantine convened a council (which he influenced) and forced the Christians to come up with an unanimous dogma on Christ's divinity, salvation, etc because the religious dissent on these issues was ripping Rome apart.
    Paul : Nicaea was called by Constantine in 325 AD. The main purpose was not to come up with a universal dogma for the Church but to respond to the question of Arianism. The Arians believed that Jesus was a secondary or inferior god. The Council condemned the heresy and created a formalized Creed. Constantine's major influence on this was to get the council called. It is worth noting that COnstantine was not a Christian at that time.



    The Trinity is the conceptual heart of Chrisitianity and the dissent over this most fundamental doctrine is why the Nicean Council was convened. The point is that early Christians were divided on fundamental issues including the divinity of Christ and re-incarnation, and that the apparent unified front on these issues today is a result of historic accident.
    http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arianism.html


    herb : The religous dogma we have now is the result of politics...
    Paul : If you believe that Ecumenical Councils are infallible then the statement is on its face absurd. If you belive otherwise then one can say that everything is politics so what is the difference.


    I believe that Ecumenical Councils are fallible and my point is simply that in the prior discussion of how different the various religions are today, that they were once not so far apart in doctrine and would have been closer were it not for historical accident.
    On another note, music so beautiful you want to be a believer :
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004WFLW/102-8536832-5955346?v=glance&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=music
    [ March 02, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
     
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Posts: 13974
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    The Trinity is the conceptual heart of Chrisitianity and the dissent over this most fundamental doctrine is why the Nicean Council was convened. The point is that early Christians were divided on fundamental issues including the divinity of Christ and re-incarnation, and that the apparent unified front on these issues today is a result of historic accident.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "historical accident". Yes, it is true that there were many heresies and Nicaea was not the end of the development of Christian dogma. But don't get confused by the idea that the council created Christian dogma out of thin air. The council was formed specifically to respond to the issue of Arianism and rejected it in favor of the more universally held belief in Jesus being one with the Father.
    But even today, Christians are divided on fundamental issues. See the Unitarians for an example.
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    [b]]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "historical accident".


    To understand me, it is best if you listen to this in the background : [link]
    My purpose is simply to bring people together of all religions here on Javaranch. The first step is for me to guide people into the realization that although we are all of different faiths, the differences are not necessarily because our religious truths are and have to be fundamentally irreconcilable. By showing that religous dogmas are different, not because of truth, but because of historical accident, it gives courage and hope to those looking for an alternate religious truth. The option of another religiuos truth gives humanity the option of coming together under one faith, united in peace and love. [insert praying smiley face icon]
    [ March 02, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

    It doesn't say "Love thy Christian neighbor, but back over your Islamic neighbor's ash cans with your 4x4 on your way to a lynching" -- although somehow, it has been read that way as often as not.


    Patently untrue from my experience. I've been around thousands of Christians in my life and I've never heard one of them suggest that any such action is justified by their holy scripture. I've never heard any radio or TV preacher suggest any such scripture justifies such action either.
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    It wasn't the Jews who nailed Jesus to the cross. And it wasn't the Romans either. It was you and me and we continue to do it every day when we sin against God's commandments.
    [/URL]


    So Jesus never has good day?
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

    Personally, I haven't owned any African Slaves. But I am still held accountable in some way today now aren't I.


    No, I don't hold you accountable. But sure, somebody, somewhere, can hold you accountable in their foolish mind for anything. Pay them no mind; keep your eye on the prize.
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
    25 million Russians died during World War II.
    Double counting alert. This is the number of all Soviet people, not only Russians. Jews are included also.


    I'm not going to allege any connection between the evil Soviet communists, the jews, Karl Marx being jewish, and the crucifixation of Jesus.
     
    frank davis
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 1479
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

    Unfortunately, there's a fallacy here. Yes, all these people were Jews. But as any card-carrying anti-semite will tell you, the ones who had the opportunity all immediately ceased being Jews and signed up as the first Christians.


    Gee, I don't know any any "card-carrying anti-semites", but I do know this is the second post I've seen thus far in this thread by Ernest where he stoops to unjusified Christian bashing. Thw whole argument, that anti-semitic Semites, were waiting for Christ, for the "opportunity" to "cease being Jewish", is so absurdly funny I can't go any further with this..



    I'm not talking about anyone involved in this discussion -- it sounds as if everyone here is entirely enlightened -- but historically, organized religion has been the source of an astonishing amount of hypocrisy. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could have read the New Testament and, based on what they had read, picked up a sword, mounted their horse, and rode off to the Middle East to slaughter the Moors in His name -- but folks spent a few hundred years (or more?) doing precisely that.


    Lots Old Testament Biblical justification for a just war. The Moors invaded Spain and France , and it was just to kick them out. The Moors took by force the Holy Land and deprived Christian pilgrims of their long historical and traditional access to the Holy sites. I'm not justifying all of the major seven Crusades, but neither am I saying it is 100% clear that fighting back is always wrong by Biblical standards.
     
    Gregg Bolinger
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 15304
    6
    Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    Thw whole argument, that anti-semitic Semites, were waiting for Christ, for the "opportunity" to "cease being Jewish", is so absurdly funny I can't go any further with this..
    It's not that these people were "waiting around". Because of what Jesus did while He was on earth, and because a lot of Jews decided to believe that He was the Messiah, but most importantly, because Jesus was born in the first place and died on the cross, Christianity was born. What Ernest said was these people ceased being Jewish, or ceased practicing the Jewish religion and converted to Christianity with whom Peter is often considered the founder as Jesus pretty much left him in charge after He ascended into Heaven.
     
    Not looking good. I think this might be the end. Wait! Is that a tiny ad?
    Sauce Labs - World's Largest Continuous Testing Cloud for Websites and Mobile Apps
    https://coderanch.com/t/722574/Sauce-Labs-World-Largest-Continuous
    • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
    • New Topic
    Boost this thread!