Are any Bodybuilders Christians here

[Amorphic]

holy crap magic, you went to town on that post.

[feanixco]

Nice work Magic

[ecto9]

Dang! I was waiting for magic to kick into this thread. You have out done yourself. Very ineteresting read BTW...

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."


"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life."


"Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?"


"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."

"All religions have been made by men."

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

That "love" is shown through his ability to let you be forgiven, every single thing anything anyone has done is forgivable as long as you accept that gift. Think about how many times a person can sin a day and times that by how many years they live and then times that by how many people there are in the world. Lets say you make rules and 6 billion people disobey 30 rules a day for years and years and years, your going to be pissed and consequences arise! If you think about how many sins people commit in their lives we're lucky to have a way out.




By saying this he is basically saying God should police the world. If God didn't let these things happen he would take away choice by forcing us not to do those things. So its either freedom to choose or we're all robots and we do exactly what he says to do no matter what and love can not be forced and thats what he wants from us. Its not God's fault that these bad things happen, its ours, he has no obligation to fix our problems that are caused by US because of stuff that he told us not to do!

Okay, so WE caused these problems.....


Are you saying humans are more powerful than God?


“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

[MATTMAN01]

It has been proven through historical findings that the true tribes of Israel (Israelites) settled in England (Ephraim) then certain tribes spread throughout certain countries. The tribe of Manessah populated America, and others went to Australia (Great Southern Land, new testament), New zealand, Canada, Europe, etc These peoples are the old testament people of God,and are still subject to Gods old testament promises of blessings and power. But as the Governments of these countries seek to distance themselves from the teachings of God they are losing the blessing that is their birthright. Thus becoming less powerful and less prosperous. Proverbs 16:7 When a mans ways please the Lord,he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.

[MATTMAN01]

Evil or Hell is just the total absence of Good, as darkness is just the total absence of light.

[MATTMAN01]

For some reason God has always left it up to mans free will. So because of Adam and Eve's indiscretion the Bible say's that" all man is born into sin "and also that" the heart of man is desperately wicked who can know it?" Hence the need to be" born again". Through repentance, Baptism by full imersion (symbolic of breaking the waters,leaving old life behind) and recieving the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. "God is a spirit and them that worship him must worship him in the spirit"

[Psychotron]

AH, EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS!
DON’T YOU RECALL THIS BEING COVERED?

Do you have any questions about the Bible?
(post #268)

You cited a lot, but only two even date close to the supposed existence of Jesus. The others are 100 or more years after his time. Just like the gospels, they shouldn't be considered of any historical importance for knowing the truth.

I still can't believe you even mention Josephus, almost all scholars believe the entry in his writings regarding the Messiah Jesus was a later interpolation.

Flavius Josephus

Of all the ancient historians claimed to bear witness to the existence of Jesus, Josephus is without a doubt the one cited most frequently by Christians. He was a respected Jewish historian who worked for the Romans under the patronage of Emperor Vespasian; born around 37 CE, he is also the closest to the time of Jesus of all the historians cited by apologists. His two major surviving works are titled The Antiquities of the Jews, a detailed history of the Jewish people based largely on biblical records, and The Jewish War, a history of the disastrous Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation of Jerusalem around 70 CE.

Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3, contains the most infamous reference to Jesus to be found in the work of any historian. Few passages have ignited as much debate as this one, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, whose full text appears below:

"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day."

To anyone unfamiliar with the debates swirling around this passage, it might appear to provide startling corroboration of the Gospel stories in virtually every detail. In fact, it seems too fantastic to be true. And indeed, this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of critical scholars today. No one argues other than that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at least in part, a forgery, a later interpolation into Josephus' work. We can be certain of this for several reasons. One is that the enthusiastic endorsement of Jesus' miracles could only have been written by a Christian, and Josephus was not a Christian. He was an orthodox Jew and remained so his entire life. The church father Origen, who quoted freely from Josephus, wrote that he was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ". Furthermore, in The Jewish War, Josephus specifically states his belief that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies - which is what got him his job in the first place.

So, imagine we remove the obvious Christian interpolations - phrases such as "if it be lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ", and "he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold". Could we let the rest remain, preserving a "reduced" Testimonium in which Josephus testifies to the simple existence of Jesus as a teacher and wise man without touting him as a messiah or a miracle-worker?

This is the position taken by most Christian scholars today, but it too is flawed. For one thing, even the "reduced" Testimonium still praises Jesus highly. This is very unlikely. Elsewhere Josephus does mention other self-proclaimed messiahs of the time, such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician, but he has nothing but evil to say about them. He scorns them as deceivers and deluders, labels them "false prophets", "impostors" and "cheats", blames them for wars and famines that afflicted the Jews, and more. This is entirely understandable, since Josephus was writing under Roman patronage, and the Romans did not look highly on the self-proclaimed messiahs of the time since many of them preached about overturning the established order, i.e., Roman rule. ("The meek shall inherit the earth" would have fallen squarely into this category, as would "I came not to send peace, but a sword.") Some messiah claimants went even further by actively confronting the established authority and sowing dissent (Jesus' expulsion of the money-changers from the temple comes to mind). The Romans were prone to express their displeasure at these types of activities by executing the messiah claimants, several other examples of which Josephus does tell us about. Had Josephus genuinely written about Jesus he would have been compelled to denounce him, not only because of his orthodox Jewish beliefs but because he had to stay in accord with Roman views or risk being imprisoned or worse. It is all but impossible that he could have written even the "reduced" Testimonium.

There are other good reasons to believe this entire passage is a forgery; namely, it does not fit with the context. Book 18, chapter 3 of Antiquities begins with an account of a massacre of Jews by Pilate in retaliation for their protests against his use of sacred money; then comes the Testimonium, and then the next paragraph begins, "And about the same time, another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews..." It is inconceivable that Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would have considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish misfortune. (Of course, it could be argued that the misfortune he was referring to was not the death of Jesus, but rather the founding of Christianity. In that case, however, the question must again be asked, how can this be squared with the enthusiastic praise for Jesus found in even the "reduced" Testimonium?) On the other hand, if the passage is removed entirely, the preceding and succeeding paragraphs naturally fit together.

One final argument can be made against the authenticity of the Testimonium - it does not appear anywhere until the fourth century CE. In the second century, the church father Origen defended Christianity against the attacks of the pagan Celsus; he freely quotes from Josephus to support his points, but never once mentions the Testimonium, though it would seem to be the ultimate ace in the hole. Modern apologists rationalize this by claiming that Origen was unaware of the existence of this passage, but this seems weak in light of the fact that he did demonstrate familiarity with Josephus' works, and even weaker when one understands they are asking us to believe that not a single apologist before the 300s happened to notice this paragraph or thought it worthy of mention. The first Christian who quoted the Testimonium was Eusebius, in the fourth century; some scholars believe that he was the one who forged it.

There is another brief passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus. Antiquities, book 20, chapter 9, contains the following:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...."

This passage is not as obviously a forgery as the Testimonium Flavianum. However, a more oblique line of attack is possible, which runs as follows:

Josephus was a Jewish historian, but he worked under the sponsorship of the Roman emperor Vespasian; he was writing for a Roman audience. A Roman audience would not have been familiar with the concepts of Jewish messianic expectation, and would not have known what the word "Christ" meant. It would only have confused them if that idea had been thrown in without explanation - and yet, if we reject the Testimonium as the obvious forgery it is, this brief snippet is the only use of the term anywhere in any of Josephus' writings, provided without further elaboration. Since it is highly unlikely that Josephus would have used this term without explaining what it meant, it is therefore probable that this phrase is an interpolation as well.

When we conclude this, several things fall into place. One is the puzzling word order of this paragraph - why would Josephus have thought to mention Jesus first, when the passage is actually about someone else entirely? But it makes perfect sense that a Christian interpolator, consciously or unconsciously, would have given pride of place to his savior's name. Another is the phrasing of the passage. Some have translated the crucial phrase as "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." However, this translation is not supported by the original Greek - in fact, the original Greek words used are identical (except for being in a slightly different case) to the wording of Matthew 1:16.

It is true that these things might be coincidences. However, there is yet another anomaly. Reading the rest of chapter 9, we learn that the Jews were so angered by the stoning of James that they wrote to the king, Agrippa, demanding that Ananus be fired. Why would Jews be so upset over the killing of an apostate, a Christian leader, that they would attempt to depose their own high priest?

None of these four points are conclusive by themselves. However, when we add them all up, the combined weight of the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that this, too, is a later Christian interpolation. Perhaps Josephus was discussing someone else, some random Jew named James, and a later Christian commentator mistakenly assumed that it was Jesus' brother who was being referred to but was bothered that Josephus did not say so, so made that connection himself by inserting the "brother of Jesus, him called Christ" phrase.

This conclusion makes good sense and makes the passage less jarring, more easily fit within context. After all, if Josephus really had written the "him called Christ" phrase, it is difficult to believe he would have left it at that without further elaboration. After all, to call someone "Christ" is a claim that is presumptuous in the extreme - it makes that person out to be the God-sent messiah, the long-awaited savior the Jews had been promised who would establish God's kingdom on earth for all time. It seems very likely that Josephus would include at least a brief discussion of the actions of the person who would dare to take such a lofty mantle on himself, even if he did not believe that person's messianic claims. But no such discussion is to be found anywhere in Josephus, and thus we can confidently conclude that this is because he never wrote this phrase in the first place.

Suetonius

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a Roman biographer and historian whose most famous work is titled The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, a biography of twelve Roman emperors livened up with gossip and stories of scandal. Written about 120 CE, the book contains one passage apologists frequently cite:

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

As historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, this verse is very weak. A number of anomalies immediately crop up upon reading it. One is that Jesus' name is seemingly misspelled. But on further examination, this may not be a misspelling at all. "Chrestus" does not mean "Christ" (that would have been "Christus") - rather, "Chrestus" was a perfectly valid Latin name in its own right, and a very common one as well. It may well be that this passage is referring to some unknown Jewish agitator, perhaps another messianic pretender such as the ones Josephus describes. Furthermore, Claudius was the Roman emperor from 41 to 54 CE. There is no indication historically that Christianity had spread to Rome by this time, or that it was powerful enough to have caused a revolt. Note, too, that the passage says it was not Christians who were causing disturbances, but Jews - and Suetonius does write about Christians elsewhere in his works, so he plainly knew the difference.

Finally, it is worth noting when this passage was written. After Josephus, the chronologically nearest witness to Jesus' life the apologists have to offer, we now leap to 120 CE. An ambiguous reference to a person who might have been Christianity's founder, written over seventy years after his supposed death, is hardly compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus.

There is another brief verse in Suetonius that apologists occasionally cite:

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign].... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

Note the second question at the beginning of this essay - what did the historian write? This brief passage mentions nothing about the existence of Jesus, and thus is worthless as evidence of his existence. It merely proves that there were Christians in 120 CE, which no one disputes.

Pliny the Younger

For two years the proconsul of Bythinia, a Roman-held province in Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger is best known for several letters he wrote to the Emperor Trajan around 112 CE that provide information on life at the time. One of them says this:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god...."

Again, note the second criterion. This passage mentions nothing about a historical Jesus, nor does it vouch for the existence of any such person. It merely states that the Christians worshipped Christ, but this proves nothing, just as a verse about the Romans worshipping Zeus would not demonstrate that such a being existed. (Note too that "Christ" is a title, not a name.) This verse does not state that this Christ was ever on Earth - it does not even state that the Christians believed he was. Thus, it is entirely compatible with an early Christianity worshipping a spiritual Christ whose death and resurrection took place in Heaven; but even if not, one hundred years is more than enough time for legends about a historical man to take root.

Tacitus

Another Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus' surviving works consist of the Germania, the Histories, and the Annals, written around 115 CE. One passage late in the Annals, book 15, chapter 44, has another mention of Jesus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he was responsible for the great fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

This passage is very likely authentic to Tacitus; a Christian interpolator would not have written such uncomplimentary things about his own religion. (Compare this to the glowing tone of even the "reduced" Testimonium Flavianum.) But again, as with the other historians, it is important to note that Tacitus did not write this until almost one hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived. Thus, he cannot provide first-hand evidence for the existence of Jesus, and it therefore makes sense to ask where he did get his information from - what his sources were.

The idea that Tacitus got his information from official Roman records seems highly unlikely. There is no evidence that the Romans kept meticulous records extending back almost a century of every single crucifixion carried out in every corner of the empire, and that possibility is further reduced by the fact that Rome had essentially burned to the ground in the interim (which is what Tacitus was writing about in the quoted paragraph). The most likely scenario is that Tacitus was getting his facts from contemporary Christian sources; he would have had no reason to doubt them. This passage, therefore, is probably based on later Christian hearsay and is weak as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Mara Bar-Serapion

Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian, but other than that nothing is known of his life. All we possess today are fragments of a letter he was writing to his son from prison, one of which says the following:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

The second and third criteria both come into play here. First, it should be noted that the dating of this letter is very uncertain. Even the earliest estimates place it around 70 CE, over 40 years after Jesus' death, while some historians have dated it well into the third century. Secondly, and far more importantly, the letter does not even mention Jesus by name - it only refers to a "wise king", and does not mention any specific deeds or sayings of this individual. It could be referring to any of the messianic pretenders of the first century, or someone else entirely unknown to us. There is no way to tell. In fact, it seems less likely that Bar-Serapion meant Jesus than any other would-be messiah, since Jesus was killed by the Romans, not by the Jews. The fact that he does not even name this "wise king", whereas he does name Socrates and Pythagoras, suggests that Bar-Serapion knew almost nothing about him. Therefore, as confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, his testimony is without merit.

Lucian of Samosata

Born around 125 CE, Lucian of Samosata was not a historian, but a satirist who wrote dialogues ridiculing Greek philosophy and mythology. Some apologists cite a brief passage of his:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Taken at face value, Lucian's testimony would seem to support the idea that such a person as Jesus Christ actually existed. However, the third question comes into play here - when did he write? Given that this passage was not written until the mid-second century at the earliest, it cannot possibly provide any direct evidence for the historicity of Jesus - Lucian must be getting his facts second-hand, from other sources. But what sources did he use? Since he does not say, we cannot know for certain. However, it could well be that he used as his source one of the other historians listed here; he may even be repeating stories he heard from contemporary Christians. Again, he does not say what his sources were, so we cannot know; all we can know is that Lucian's writing provides no independent confirmation for Jesus' existence.

The Jewish Talmud

A compendium of Jewish oral law and rabbinical commentary still used by Orthodox Jews today to complement the Torah, the Talmud was entirely oral until it was codified and written down somewhere around 200 CE. It contains a few scattered references to Jesus, one of which is reproduced below:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

The problem with the Talmud is this - it is not an objective history, but a polemic. It is obvious that the above verse is not a description of something that actually happened; rather, it is a Jewish retort to the New Testament accusation that the trial and execution of Jesus took place secretly and in haste. Theological biases render historical accounts unreliable, and this is just as true for the Jews who were answering Christian accusations as for the Christians who were making them. By the time the Talmud was compiled, centuries after Jesus' alleged death and after the Jewish War which caused vast destruction in Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people to the winds, third-century rabbis would have been in no position to be able to refute the very existence of Jesus (not to mention that they also lacked the exegetical techniques that would have allowed them to even suspect such a possibility). It would have been much easier to grant his existence and then slant the stories about him to favor their side of the argument rather than the Christians', and this is exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the Talmud is without value as a historical account because it dramatically contradicts the Christian version of events, and even contradicts itself in numerous places, when speaking about Jesus. Note that the above verse says he was hanged, not crucified. There are others that say he died by stoning, not at Calvary, but at Lydda, and not by the Romans, but by the Jews. Some Talmudic verses say Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, others say he was a magician. One mention of Jesus places his life at the time of the Maccabean kings, around 100 BCE, while another says his parents were contemporaries of a second-century rabbi. Such fragmented and inconsistent accounts show that the Talmud cannot possibly be accurate history; if it were describing true events, it would be impossible for it to contradict itself. This, combined with its late writing date, makes it even weaker than the other accounts as evidence of Jesus' existence.

Thallus

The true name of the historian we now call Thallus is in fact not known. Nothing written by Thallus has survived to this day; the only reason we know anything about him is that he is mentioned in the writings of others. In the ninth century CE, a Christian named George Syncellus quoted an early third-century Christian named Julius Africanus, who in turn referenced the work of another man who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean sometime between 50 and 100 CE. The true name of this man is unclear, as the manuscript is damaged and a letter is missing, but "Thallus" seems to be the most likely spelling. Neither any of his original works nor any of the original works of Africanus survive, and a fragment of third-hand hearsay stretching across eight centuries is about as weak and uncompelling as any evidence could possibly be. Nevertheless, if Syncellus and in turn Africanus are to be believed, Thallus' history mentioned the three-hour darkness at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. (No direct quotes from Thallus are known.)

As previously stated, this evidence is so ridiculously weak and circumstantial that it could be justifiably dismissed without going any farther. Third-hand hearsay is not compelling proof of a worldwide darkness that everyone should have noticed. Furthermore, Thallus himself did not even necessarily say it was anything out of the ordinary. Syncellus quotes Africanus as saying this:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me."

Passover is around a full moon, and it is physically impossible for a solar eclipse to occur during a full moon, much less to last for three hours, so Africanus would be right if that was what Thallus said - but we do not know what Thallus said; he is not quoted directly. Astronomers have calculated that a solar eclipse did occur in November of 29 CE. Is it not possible that Thallus was recording this, nothing more, and that the link to the gospel story was made by Africanus who mistakenly thought it was an attempt to explain away a mysterious three-hour darkness? And of course, this is assuming that Africanus accurately referenced Thallus, and that Syncellus accurately referenced both of them. None of the links in this long chain of assumptions can be substantiated, and thus there is no good reason to accept Thallus as any corroboration of the gospel account.

Phlegon

As we approach the end of the list, we encounter Phlegon of Tralles, a writer who lived sometime around 140 CE. Like Thallus, he is typically cited as a witness to the miraculous darkness around the time of the crucifixion; also like Thallus, his major works, the Chronicles and the Olympiads, have been lost, and the only way we know anything they said is through references made to them by later Christian commentators, such as Origen, Eusebius and Julius Africanus. All of them, as previously mentioned, reference Phlegon in support of the darkness. For example, Julius Africanus says the following:

"In fact, let it be so. Let the idea that this happened seize and carry away the multitude, and let the cosmic prodigy be counted as an eclipse of the sun according to its appearance. Phlegon reports that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, during the full moon, a full eclipse of the sun happened, from the sixth hour until the ninth. Clearly this is our eclipse!"

And Eusebius, the only one to quote Phlegon verbatim, has this to say:

"In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: 'Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 CE], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea.'"

Of course, considerations of the third criterion intervene - Phlegon was, by all accounts, far too late to have witnessed any of these things personally. He cannot provide independent attestation of the darkness.

However, there is a far more serious consideration of the first criterion, one that bears directly on Phlegon's credibility as a historian. He was not a Christian as far as we know, so there are no grounds to accuse him of inventing the story to support his own beliefs. However, it seems that Phlegon was particularly fond of fantastic and miraculous stories, regardless of their origin, and endorsed as fact many things that are impossible. His book On Marvels contains stories about things such as living centaurs, ghosts, men giving birth, a thousand-year-old Greek prophetess, oracles spoken by a corpse on a battlefield, and the animated, decapitated head of the Roman general Publius, which continued to speak even after his body was devoured by a great red wolf.

By the time Phlegon wrote, in the mid- to late second century, Christian mythology about the crucifixion would have become widely spread. It is highly likely that Phlegon, never averse to fantastic stories, picked up on these tales and uncritically repeated them. A writer so plainly unreliable, and in any case known to us only through hearsay by Christians who might well have put their own spin on what he wrote, cannot be regarded as useful historical testimony.

DID YOU CHANGE SIDES PSYCH, YOUR ATTITUDE IN THIS THREAD IS DECISIVELY ANTI-GOD, UNLIKE MY THREAD.

Yes, I did. I had mentioned I was in a state of confusion during that thread. I went searching and found answers, but they didn't support any existence in God or Jesus the Christ. I am not anti-God, I merely don't care. It is not worth the mental punishment that comes with being a "true believer" when I see no evidence for believing.

This is it for me in this thread, I don't care to continue these types of arguments. No one is open minded enough to ever think differently for one second, lest they question their faith. Everyone is too scared they just might change so they just ignore the stuff on the sides and put their blinders on.

[Ronnie Rowland]

Nope, i was raised Christian by my parents but after highschool i decided it wasn't for me.

First, there's a huge difference between faith in Christ and organized religious sects/churches voicing their man-made opinions, beliefs and doctrines. Once you get past faith in Christ to be saved the bible can be interepretted to say just about anything. I know this to be a fact. Obtaining head knowledge or becoming a religious fanatic has nothing to do with real Christianity!

Second, there's no verse in the bible that says a believing homosexual will not go to heaven. It's not there!

Third, the bible says there will be many (not a few) say Lord-Lord we have done all these WONDERFUL WORKS IN THY NAME and he will say- depart from me you workers of uniquity because I never knew you! What this tells me is that they were playing religion and judging others as opposed to accepting the fact everyone, including them will always be a sinner and they ONLY way to heaven is by faith in Christ (not good works plus faith in Christ)!

I think that pretty much sums it up on my end.

[Ronnie Rowland]

For some reason God has always left it up to mans free will. So because of Adam and Eve's indiscretion the Bible say's that" all man is born into sin "and also that" the heart of man is desperately wicked who can know it?" Hence the need to be" born again". Through repentance, Baptism by full imersion (symbolic of breaking the waters,leaving old life behind) and recieving the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. "God is a spirit and them that worship him must worship him in the spirit"

Water baptism comes after salvation (not for salavation) and the speaking in toungues (which has now ceased) came both before and after baptism.

[Ronnie Rowland]

"

"Religion is a byproduct of fear. "All religions have been made by men."

I agree!

[Ronnie Rowland]

I am just wondering why does it matter which religion you belong to as long as you are good human being???

Because Jesus would never had to come die on the cross and suffer if all it took to get to heaven was being a good person or following a set of rules. This my friend is what separates religion from being saved by grace through faith in Christ. The book of Galatians says you fall from the grace of God (the place where the free gift of eternal salvation is given) when you try to get to heaven by being a good person and/or following religious laws plus having faith in Jesus.

Here's a prime example-the bible says there will be many (not a few) say Lord-Lord we have done all these WONDERFUL WORKS IN THY NAME (They where doing good deeds in the name of Jesus such as being good to others) and he will say- depart from me you workers of uniquity because I never knew you! What this says is that they were playing religion as opposed to accepting the fact they will always be a sinner in the eyes of God and they "ONLY" way to heaven is by faith in Christ- death-burial-ressurection (not good works and/or plus faith in Christ). It also says those who come to him and are luke warm will be spewed out. This has nothing to do with performing good works or being a good person. It has to do with coming to him on a personal level and accepting his blood sacrifices for all your sins (past-future-present) with absolute belief from the heart as opposed to not really believing with all your heart-mind-soul..

THERE'S SOME WHACKY THINGS BEING DONE IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY!!

[rockinred]

Magic,

The best way to describe what many refer hell to is in the book of Revelations when the book prophecies about the end... now, the term "lake of fire" and "everlasting fire/destruction" is what all who loved death and not life and followed the evil ways of the world with Satan and his followers from heaven will be cast into... It states somewhere along the lines of... Hades (hell), the sea, the dragon (satan),etc.. and all are cast into this lake of fire which is eternal destruction/damnation... then it goes on to say that the smoke is seen and can be smelled as a sweet scent to all in God's Kingdom for eternity... these are spoken in messages and parables... it is not literal smoke and it is not a literal lake of fire.. etc..

All of God's creation is awaiting the eternal judgement....The only place that is stated to have undergone God's judgement like this is Sodom and Gomorrah (read Jude), that place was destroyed and never to be rebuilt or seen again... it states that place underweant the judicial judgement of everlasting fire.... now it is still not literaly burning.. but, whenever you mention the term all think about the lawlessness and what happened... that is the smoke from everlasting fire that will and is even now being smelt this day and age...

The way I understand is that the Sheol, Hades, Hell, all mean the same in the different languages, meaning DEATH, the grave when you die... yet, there is still a chance to be brought back to life.... so when he undergoes the judgment of everlasting fire, that means he has announced his final judgment of things and it is over no chance for coming back... that is why it states that Hell/hades is cast into the lake of fire... in other words DEATH as we know it will be no more... just a memory... you can't throw hell into hell... if you see what I am saying...

The burning is symbolic of the memory... all the way things are and have been without God these years and Satan as the ruler will be detroyed forever like Sodom and Gomorrah, only as a remberence of the way things were without God as the ruler.... (hence the smoke), and also why it is a sweet smell to God's peoople for eternity... the smoke and burning is not literal anymore then Sodoms smoke is not literal (no smoke except a memory of smoke)...no one will ever look back and say maybe it will be better to live after the old ways.... that is the sweet smell... if literal no one would like the way smoke smells...

That is also why God has continued to allow things to go so that he may be just with his actions.... allowing satan to rule and people to disobey, innocent to die, etc... because one day, he will bring his eternal judgment and set it straight... Hell, Hades, Sheol, are all the state of the dead until that time... then the eternal judgment is also known as Lake of fire, Gehenna, and at that time there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth...rulers and people saying "why" "I lived good", etc...

the only other place referred to in the Bible about a waiting place is that place called Tartarus (greek term), that is used to describe a place where certain spirit lives are kept until the appointed time of judgment... this is the place that the demons did not want to go when Jesus was casting the demons out while he was on earth... this is not a place that any human was talked about going to... the only place that any human goes to is the grave, hell. this tartarus (spirits awaiting final judgment) will also be cast into the lake of fire in the end with everything else....

I could of quoted more, but you know the scriptures and can understand what I am talking about... also, I wasn't suppose to post again..

[rockinred]

You cited a lot, but only two even date close to the supposed existence of Jesus. The others are 100 or more years after his time. Just like the gospels, they shouldn't be considered of any historical importance for knowing the truth.

I still can't believe you even mention Josephus, almost all scholars believe the entry in his writings regarding the Messiah Jesus was a later interpolation.







Yes, I did. I had mentioned I was in a state of confusion during that thread. I went searching and found answers, but they didn't support any existence in God or Jesus the Christ. I am not anti-God, I merely don't care. It is not worth the mental punishment that comes with being a "true believer" when I see no evidence for believing.

This is it for me in this thread, I don't care to continue these types of arguments. No one is open minded enough to ever think differently for one second, lest they question their faith. Everyone is too scared they just might change so they just ignore the stuff on the sides and put their blinders on.

psychotron, it really doesn't matter what one alleged authority or expert says about another.. what gives one opinion more credit than another? you can find an answer for either side by "alleged experts".... that doesn't mean anything...

Let me explain some more about this and what you said in your last paragraph... if you look for reasons to not believe they are there... if you look for reasons to believe they are there too...

Here is the question I have for you and any.... what answers do you have? I can sit all day long and discredit a belief, but without having one yourself that provides answers... so what??? If you don't have any answers and all is about how wrong things are, what did you accomplish for yourself??

You need to search for answers... that is the real difference... search for answers and meaning and you will find an entirely different outcome... you say you looked openly? did you look for hypocracy? it is all there to be seen, but when you seek for answers for your questions in life it is when you find meaning.

I want answers too... not just skepticism... I think there is more to it than us just going back and forth on a computer... I have said it before, you start having trials and everything you know and think lifes about comes crumbling down in your world all your security lost... I guarantee you start asking for more meaining...

so, to all who discredit the bible with some smart response, how about following up with some answers and meaning to our existence.... until then you are just narrow and skeptic...which is easy and simple minded... the exact thing you say you are not...

[magic32]

You cited a lot, but only two even date close to the supposed existence of Jesus. The others are 100 or more years after his time. Just like the gospels, they shouldn't be considered of any historical importance for knowing the truth. Yes, I did. I had mentioned I was in a state of confusion during that thread. I went searching and found answers, but they didn't support any existence in God or Jesus the Christ.

THIS IS TRUE AND SADLY, IT APPEARS (AND THIS IS ONLY EMPIRICAL) THAT THE MENTION, AFFILIATION, OR WRITING OF THIS THEN PERCEIVED FALSE MESSIAH WAS UNLAWFUL AT THE TIME. BUT NEVERTHELESS, ANYONE WHO WOULD DISBELIEVE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF JESUS AND HIS MANY MIRACLES IS INDEED A MOST DECEIVED PERSON…HOW I ASK COULD TIME ITSELF HAVE BEEN MEASURED BY THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF ONE WHO DIDN’T EVEN EXIST?

I am not anti-God, I merely don't care. It is not worth the mental punishment that comes with being a "true believer" when I see no evidence for believing.

IT IS A PARADOX. FIRSTLY YOU ARE SIMPLY PARAPHRASING WORDS SPOKEN BY HIM LONG AGO:

• Mat 5:10
  Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
• Mat 5:12
  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
• Jhn 15:20
  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

SECONDLY THE EVIDENCE IS ALL AROUND US. I KNOW I’M SOUNDING LIKE MORPHEOUS AGAIN BUT APPROPRIATELY SO, BECAUSE THE MATRIX IS A PSEUDONYM FOR SATAN’S WORLD SYSTEM (HIS BLINDERS AS YOU PUT IT) THUS ONE CAN SUBSTITUTE "EVIDENCE" FOR "MATRIX".

MORPHEUS
The Evidence is everywhere, it's all
around us, here even in this room.
You can see it out your window or on
your television. You feel it when
you go to work, or go to church or
pay your taxes. It is the world
that has been pulled over your eyes
to blind you from the truth.

NEO
What truth?

MORPHEUS
That you are a slave, Neo. Like
everyone else, you were born into
bondage, kept inside a prison that
you cannot smell, taste, or touch.
A prison for your mind.

The LEATHER CREAKS as he leans back.

MORPHEUS
Unfortunately, no one can be told
what the Evidence is. You have to see/ [experience via the Holy Spirit]
it for yourself.

This is it for me in this thread, I don't care to continue these types of arguments. No one is open minded enough to ever think differently for one second, lest they question their faith. Everyone is too scared they just might change so they just ignore the stuff on the sides and put their blinders on.

SORRY TO HEAR THAT, I TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE WITH EVIDENCE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE TOPIC…MILK THISTLE, GYNO, DNP , OR JESUS.

WHEN YOU AGAIN QUESTION YOUR FAITH, IN THE LIGHT OF PERSECUTION OR DOUBT, SIMPLY LOOK AT THE MARVELS AROUND YOU (A TREE OR ECOSYSTEM, THE VASTNESS OF SPACE OR THE COMPLEXITIES OF A SINGLE CELL) AND ALSO QUESTION THEIR EXISTENCE BECAUSE NOTHING + NOTHING NEVER EQUALS SOMETHING REGARDLESS OF TIME AND CHANCE AS EXHIBITED IN THE MOST POPULAR OPPOSING VIEWS TO CREATIONISM.

SO LONG OLD FRIEND.

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

Magic,
The best way to describe what many refer hell to is in the book of Revelations when the book prophecies about the end... now, the term "lake of fire" and "everlasting fire/destruction"..

A VERY NICE EXPANSION ON THE VERSES I CITED. BUT AS NOTED SUCH DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT LIMITED TO REVELATION.

[DSM4Life]

I wish god never made butter cake, that $hit is addictive !

[ecto9]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1-3

[nojoke]

WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE AFOREMENTIONED BURNING AND TORTURING FOREVER AND LET US NOT FORGET WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH…

What's your take on the burning forever and ever?...Usally a "real" fire consume's until their is nothing left (except maybe some ashes)...With the scripture you mentioned, how in this sense will it burn forever and ever?...I'm thiking it's not literal...

HEY THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH BUDDY .

This is what I perceive a sinner to get, the above mentioned scripture...Death (second death)...Or rather, everlasting destruction which fire represents...What's your take?



NJ

[Psychotron]

You make it hard to re-quote you magic lol

You cited a lot, but only two even date close to the supposed existence of Jesus. The others are 100 or more years after his time. Just like the gospels, they shouldn't be considered of any historical importance for knowing the truth. Yes, I did. I had mentioned I was in a state of confusion during that thread. I went searching and found answers, but they didn't support any existence in God or Jesus the Christ.

THIS IS TRUE AND SADLY, IT APPEARS (AND THIS IS ONLY EMPIRICAL) THAT THE MENTION, AFFILIATION, OR WRITING OF THIS THEN PERCEIVED FALSE MESSIAH WAS UNLAWFUL AT THE TIME. BUT NEVERTHELESS, ANYONE WHO WOULD DISBELIEVE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF JESUS AND HIS MANY MIRACLES IS INDEED A MOST DECEIVED PERSON…HOW I ASK COULD TIME ITSELF HAVE BEEN MEASURED BY THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF ONE WHO DIDN’T EVEN EXIST?

I understand that there are many explanations of why we might have lost a lot of historical records from that time (the destruction of the temple, etc). But I would think there would still be some more convincing empirical evidence other than just what is written in the Bible. I also doubt the existence of a historical gospel Jesus on things other than the lack of empirical evidence. If I read the Pauline epistles without ever thinking of the gospels I see a complete disconnect between where Paul got his revelation of the Christ and how the gospels present themselves. I have even read some early apologetic accounts where the author didn't seem to think very much of the gospels.

I am not anti-God, I merely don't care. It is not worth the mental punishment that comes with being a "true believer" when I see no evidence for believing.

IT IS A PARADOX. FIRSTLY YOU ARE SIMPLY PARAPHRASING WORDS SPOKEN BY HIM LONG AGO:

* Mat 5:10
Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
* Mat 5:12
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
* Jhn 15:20
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

SECONDLY THE EVIDENCE IS ALL AROUND US. I KNOW I’M SOUNDING LIKE MORPHEOUS AGAIN BUT APPROPRIATELY SO, BECAUSE THE MATRIX IS A PSEUDONYM FOR SATAN’S WORLD SYSTEM (HIS BLINDERS AS YOU PUT IT) THUS ONE CAN SUBSTITUTE "EVIDENCE" FOR "MATRIX".

MORPHEUS
The Evidence is everywhere, it's all
around us, here even in this room.
You can see it out your window or on
your television. You feel it when
you go to work, or go to church or
pay your taxes. It is the world
that has been pulled over your eyes
to blind you from the truth.

NEO
What truth?

MORPHEUS
That you are a slave, Neo. Like
everyone else, you were born into
bondage, kept inside a prison that
you cannot smell, taste, or touch.
A prison for your mind.

The LEATHER CREAKS as he leans back.

MORPHEUS
Unfortunately, no one can be told
what the Evidence is. You have to see/ [experience via the Holy Spirit]
it for yourself.

You know I thought I sincerely did, but it would seem apparent from my current standpoint that it was just a mental flush. I guess in a sense I am still looking since I do still study the Bible a lot, probably daily. However, I don't seem to view it in the same way you might. I enjoy it for the same reason I love the odyssey or the illiad.

It is funny to bring up The Matrix. The entire story is based around Gnostic beliefs. Probably why I love the series so much.

The Name of the Name

This time, what say let's navigate the mythological labyrinth of The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded. Let's see how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Some of the carefully chosen character names smack of biblical redemption themes: "Neo" denotes the New Adam, the first of a new breed of humanity, freed from the tyranny of the Principalities and Powers and able to free others. He is also called "Mr. Anderson," which can be taken, without too much of a stretch, to denote "the Son of Man," a variant on the Adam motif. "Anderson" is a Scandinavian name, "Anders' son," and "Anders" is simply a variation of "Andreas," Greek for "man." So "Anderson" means "Son of Man." That doesn't mean every slob you meet with that name is the Son of Man. My point is that they could have named Neo's Matrix persona anything, but they chose "Anderson" because of its symbolic resonance. "Trinity" is even more obviously theological. She is the third on the team beside Morpheus and Neo.

"The Merovingian" (obviously a reference to the Medieval Frankish dynasty of Clovis, Charles Martel, and Pepin the Short) is in some ways Neo's opposite number, as Persephone implies when she sees in Neo an echo of the way her husband was long ago. Both are rebels against the Matrix. Surely the Merovingian is given this name for other reasons than that he has a French accent. He is a nod to the crack-pot hypothesis made famous about twenty years ago (see Baigent and Leigh's Holy Blood, Holy Grail), and recently warmed-over in the novel The DaVinci Code, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that their descendants eventually produced the Merovingian dynasty. So this sort of makes the Merovingian an Antichrist matching Neo as the Christ figure. His wife Persephone bears the name of the Greek Queen of the Underworld, bride of Hades.

Various other Matrix names have no theological importance, such as "Link," "Tank," "Mouse," "Switch," and "Dozer," all of which simply mark their bearers as technos. Their names are really the names of roles, not of characters. So the assignment of names is hardly random. The religious ones are trying to establish some sort of code. Can we decipher it? Sure we can! It has to do with ancient Gnosticism. Neo is a standard Gnostic character: the Redeemed Redeemer. Morpheus is the Gnostic Revealer. Trinity is Sophia, the suffering embodiment of Wisdom. Here we go!



Gnosis and Mythos

Gnosticism was a family of religious movements in antiquity that seems to have had several roots, resulting from esoteric interpretations of Greek Platonism, Persian Zoroastrianism, and Israelite polytheism. It had a great influence upon formative Christianity and finally issued in a number of important systems of Christian Gnosticism. "Gnostics" are those "in the know," the elite, the pneumatikoi (or spiritual ones) who understand the esoteric truth to which the common run of humanity remain oblivious. They alone know the truth concerning the origin of the world and of the souls of human beings, at least of those lucky enough to have souls. Stay with me now, kimosabe.

According to the Gnostic myth, originally there was only the Pleroma, the Fullness of divinity, spirit, light. From the Unknown Father, a la Neo-Platonism, there cascaded successive waves of divinity, in pairs (syzygies, or "yokefellows"), each pair of divine entities (Aions) giving birth to the next, until there were as many as 365 of them (Valentinus' estimate). At last, in the final stage of begetting, there appeared a single Aion, Sophia, which means Wisdom. She wanted to "conceive," too, a pun implying that she wanted both to continue the process and that she, the farthest from the Godhead, wanted thorough knowledge of it. (In the same way, the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis is plainly supposed to be both carnal knowledge and enlightenment. What's that? You disagree with my exegesis, do you? Sit down. I am the Gnostic here, not you.) So she somehow managed to effect a virgin birth, producing a misbegotten entity called Ialdabaoth (a garbled version of "Yahve Sabaoth," Lord of Hosts) or Saklas ("the Blind One"). This one vainly imagined himself to be the Ultimate God and proceeded to create the Archons ("rulers"), his angels, evil counterparts to the Aions proceeding from the Father. Ialdabaoth was the biblical Creator, and as such he was the Demiurge (Greek for "craftsman," a term borrowed from Plato, who posited a Demiurge to translate the eternal heavenly Forms and Ideas into material existence). Gnostics were super-spiritual types who disdained the material world as inherently sinful, something that seems neurotic not only to us but to most ancient Christians and Jews who, after all, thought God had made the earth and pronounced it "very good."

So the Demiurge, the Old Testament God, made the material world, but it was inert and lifeless, as in all ancient cosmogonies, even that of Genesis chapter one, where there is first just a placid ocean (Tehom, the Deep) until a mighty wind stirs it up and begins the process whereby all the different substances and creatures are spun off one after the other. It is the same in Hindu cosmogony. Well, what jump starts the creation in Gnosticism is the theft of sparks of the Pleromatic divine light or spirit from heaven by the Archons. This happens in various ways, according to which Gnostic teacher you listened to. According to some, Mother Sophia stooped down to look into the depths of the new-made world, and the reflection of her divine light, quickly absorbed into the pool, was enough to start things percolating. Or she might have been pulled into it and torn apart, her remnants becoming the DNA (as we should say) giving self-replicating order to the material world. Or it may have been the Primal Man, the Heavenly Adam, one of the divine Aions, who was seized by the Archons and ripped to shreds (corresponding both to the crucifixion of Christ in 1Corinthians 2:8; Colossians 2:14-15 and the rending limb-from-limb of Dionysus and Orpheus); his fragments then supplied the ordering principle in matter.

A cameo of the larger process is the Eden scene as we read it in Gnostic texts such as The Origin of the World and The Hypostasis of the Archons, which seem to be based on older versions of the Adam and Eve story than the one we read, nice and bowdlerized, in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. In this version Adam is inert, lying as dead on the ground until Eve, an Aion, another version of Sophia, takes pity upon him and gives him life, whereupon he recognizes her as "the Mother of All Living." The wicked Archons lust after this goddess and try to assault her. But she turns into a Tree (the Tree of Knowledge), just as Daphne did to escape the lust of Apollo. She leaves in her place a false semblance, the earthly, fleshly Eve, whom the Archons gang-rape, deriving from her, again, the ordering DNA to get the creation going.

What happened to these divine sparks? They are the key to the whole Gnostic epic of salvation. These sparks exist in select human beings, who therefore have a lifelong sense of being strangers in a strange land, though they have no idea why. Indeed, they do not belong here. Finally, the Father takes pity on them and sends a Redeemer, a Revealer, into the world. This one takes upon himself the disguising likeness of the Archons, then of mortal humans, in order to circulate in secret among humanity and find the elite who possess the spark but do not know what it means. These he informs of their true origin and destiny, awakening them and giving them the knowledge to escape the world-prison of the Archons, who will prevent their heavenward descent if they can, since obviously they do not want their world to lose the precious soul-substance that holds it together! The Revealer tells the awakened Gnostics how to elude the Archons and successfully to regain the Pleroma, where they belong. If they fail, they must fall back into the world to be reincarnated again. Most people lack divine sparks but may be saved despite themselves. Some, like Cypher, prefer the illusion with its pleasures.

In some tellings of the myth, the Redeemer, once he takes on flesh or the semblance of flesh, becomes forgetful of his own divine destiny and must be awakened! (See the Hymn of the Pearl in the Acts of Thomas.) Once he is awakened, he renews his mission. The point of this odd plot development is to hint that the Redeemed and the Redeemer are essentially one. The Revealer is a stranger from the divine world, and so are those he awakens. Together, they form the Cosmic Christ, the Primal Man.

If the goal of complete redemption of all the divine sparks is ever accomplished, this world of material sin and delusion will collapse back into a chaotic heap, and the Primal Man and/or the Fallen Sophia will be redeemed. (If you are by chance familiar with the medieval Kabbalah of Isaac Luria, you will recognize a virtually complete series of parallels: there it is the Shekinah of God that is trapped in the world of matter, and the Heavenly Adam, Adam Kadmon, who must be redeemed., etc.)



The Key to the Matrix

All this has everything to do with the Matrix films. Morpheus is clearly the Gnostic Revealer. He roams this false world of delusion created by the Machines (the Archons), searching, like Diogenes of old, for those sleepers who are ever troubled by intimations that something is amiss, that there is something more real to awaken to. These are the ones who, as the Architect (= the Demiurge himself) tells Neo, make up that small percentage of the sleeping humans who will not easily accept the Matrix program. "Morpheus" is based on the Greek word morphe, "form," and denotes "Transformer." Morpheus was one of the Greek gods of sleep, the son of Hypnos. The god Morpheus caused human forms to appear in our dreams. In The Matrix, Morpheus navigates the world of sleep but frees people from it. He is the Revealer. As he administers the Red Pill, he is imparting the gnosis, the secret knowledge that redeems the knower by self-transformation. Just imagine how your life would be changed if someone told you that you were secretly the heir of the richest man in the world. Same thing.

Morpheus has awakened Trinity, who joins him in his work, liberating souls with knowledge. She is instrumental in awakening Neo. In this she is parallel to the Spiritual Eve who awakens Adam (= Neo). She enters the dream-world again, often, and there eventually suffers and dies until she is finally redeemed by Neo, himself the Redeemed Redeemer, who had to be awakened in order to assume his role as the Savior. More of that in a second, but here let's note that Neo, as the Redeemer, has saved Sophia from her age-long anguish, just as in the Gnostic myth. Why do they call her Trinity rather than Sophia? It might be, it should be, because it was the Sophia figure, a semi-autonomous aspect of the divine nature (see Proverbs chapter 8), that led to the Christian idea of a single Godhead somehow composed of distinct personae--in other words, a Trinity.

Neo is not simply one more of the elect to be detached from the machine. He has lived before, the first human to awaken on his own, reject the machine, and begin to liberate others, including Morpheus! He was killed but was destined to be reborn--as "Neo," a new version of the original. Morpheus had been looking for this one, to restore his memory of being the primordial Gnostic, the Redeemer. Only he must redeem him first. And he does. So Neo is the perfect depiction of the Gnostic Primal Man, subsequently rescued by the Revealer, awakening to his forgotten identity/destiny, which puts him in the position to save others. As he saves them, he is saving himself. This is why he can tell his youthful admirer in the beginning of Reloaded that he shouldn't thank Neo for saving him; he saved himself. Both are true, for the Redeemed Redeemer is like infinite regress: he is always essentially saving himself, a piece of himself. By the way, Niobe's ship is called the Logos, because, as in the Gnostic-leaning Gospel of John, the Logos is the divine Word of revelation which enters our world of darkness to save and illuminate its benighted inhabitants.

Zion, the true home of the awakened, uses the name of Mount Zion, the high point of Jerusalem where Solomon built both the palace of the Jewish kings and the temple of God. During the Exile in Babylon, where the priests and aristocrats of Judah had been deported by King Nebuchadnezzar (hence the name of Morpheus' ship which ventures into the territory of the Dream-Exile), Jews yearned for Zion (see Psalm 137). Hence in The Matrix Reloaded, Zion is the beloved home from which the exiles return from the Babylonian Captivity of the Matrix. In terms of the Gnostic framework, Zion would stand for the heavenly Pleroma, depicted as above us, not below us, but as Tillich said, the direction of the divine is an interchangeable metaphor: the Gnostic or the Yogi is simultaneously ascending through the levels of heaven and descending through deeper and deeper levels of the self.

The robotic death-ships that are digging down to destroy Zion are called the Sentinels. No, not just a tip of the hat to Marvel Comics. These Sentinels are the Archons whose job is to prevent the ascension/escape of the freed souls. They are the "Watchers" of Jewish Apocalyptic, originally the planetary gods of Babylonian mythology, always on the lookout for escapees.

As for Councilor West, he is Cornell West, a philosopher at Princeton University and all around cool guy. He must have liked the first Matrix movie and asked the Wachowski brothers if he could be in the second one. I briefly spoke to Dr. West back in the Spring of 1989. Just had to throw that in.

Why so much (beautifully choreographed!) violence in The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded? It is an index of the rage felt by those, like Harris and Kliebold, who just cannot stand to languish in what they perceive to be the Matrix-world of grinning jocks, contemptuous, air-headed cheerleaders, and clueless guidance counselors. You and I can understand what motivated them. They were trying to escape the Matrix, even if only for the brief instant of their homicidal/suicidal firestorm. A brief moment of world-transcending ecstasy, a Sartrean "final experience." But what a waste. The true Gnostic, dissatisfied with this world of delusion, takes upon himself the role of the Gnostic Revealer, the Compassionate Bodhisattva, the refugee from the Platonic Cavern. He bides his time, rejoicing in the secret world he knows deep down within himself, and among the rare like-minded, his fellow elect. And he seeks for signs of another soul stirring in its sleep, ripe for awakening by means of a well-chosen question or Socratic observation. The Gnostic will not rashly force upon others a knowledge they cannot yet grasp. But, like Morpheus, he is quietly ready to help others escape. No less, he is prepared for the possibility that perhaps his beloved Zion may itself turn out to be but another level of the Matrix. If it does, he is willing to learn new truth and to take another Red Pill.

This is it for me in this thread, I don't care to continue these types of arguments. No one is open minded enough to ever think differently for one second, lest they question their faith. Everyone is too scared they just might change so they just ignore the stuff on the sides and put their blinders on.

SORRY TO HEAR THAT, I TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE WITH EVIDENCE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE TOPIC…MILK THISTLE, GYNO, DNP, OR JESUS.

I enjoy discussing things to an extent, and I have never had a problem discussing them objectively, but there is always some question you can ask me that I can't answer, like your comments on time, and a previous posters question on the meaning of life etc. I simply can't answer those, but I can only say that at the present time in my life I feel comfortable with my position on things. If by some chance in my searching for the truth I come back to christianity, then so be it. I got de-railed early in my faith due to my problems with the concept of Hell. What I later learned is that the traditionally held concept of an eternal punishment (Hell) is not really biblically supported, and for the first 300 or so years this was not a widely held belief. Most all believed in universal salvation, that is, all will come to one with God. There will be no eternal seperation. His anger will come to end lest the souls of men grow weak. Hell didn't come to be widely believed until the latin translation really came into existence.

Now whether you will be indeed "punished" for your sins if you're not a believer, I make no comment, and nor did the earliest fathers. For all I know the punishment is simply being judged and having all your sins pointed out. I still study this topic a lot, but if I ever come back to being a Christian I won't be believing in eternal punishment.

WHEN YOU AGAIN QUESTION YOUR FAITH, IN THE LIGHT OF PERSECUTION OR DOUBT, SIMPLY LOOK AT THE MARVELS AROUND YOU (A TREE OR ECOSYSTEM, THE VASTNESS OF SPACE OR THE COMPLEXITIES OF A SINGLE CELL) AND ALSO QUESTION THEIR EXISTENCE BECAUSE NOTHING + NOTHING NEVER EQUALS SOMETHING REGARDLESS OF TIME AND CHANCE AS EXHIBITED IN THE MOST POPULAR OPPOSING VIEWS TO CREATIONISM.

SO LONG OLD FRIEND.

I marvel at life everyday, but I don't need a higher power to appreciate the existence of what I see.

You're right about the nothing + nothing, but, I tend to think the idea of there existing something infinitely complex (god) before something simple to be kind of just as outrageous as the thing I get thrown back in my face about us coming from no where (big bang).

I will always be here to chime in, but when they get out of control I think it is easier to just bow out.

[magic32]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1-3

TRUE, AND ALSO:

• Jhn 20:29
  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: [but] blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME SEEING CAN (BUT NOT NECESSARILY) FOSTER BELIEVING, AND HE WAS SENT TO BE BELIEVED IN!
SURELY, ONE WOULD NOT THINK THAT JESUS PERFORMED SO MANY MIRACLES, NOT TO INSPIRE BELIEF AND PROVE HIS CLAIMS OF DEITY? LET’S HEAR SOME OF SOME COMMENTARY ON THE MATTER:

• Jhn 2:10
  And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now.
• Jhn 2:11
  This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

• Jhn 11:42
  And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said [it], that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
• Jhn 11:43
  And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

• Jhn 6:2
  And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

• Jhn 2:23
  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast [day], many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

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

WHY WOULD SUCH A THING NEED BE FIGURATIVE? OUR REALITY IS COMPOSED OF THE NATURAL WORLD’S LAWS AS ESTABLISHED BY GOD. THEREFORE AS MENTIONED ABOVE IT IS NOT REALLY POSSIBLE TO RAISE ONE FROM THE DEAD, BUT GOD FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE OF OUR REALITY. THUS I BELIEVE HELL FIRE IS INDEED NON-CONSUMING! ALSO AN ETERNAL SOUL WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS TO BOTH DEATH & FIRE. AND LASTLY, OF COURSE THERE IS PRECEDENT EVEN ON EARTH OF SUCH FIRE:

• Exd 3:2
  And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed.
• Exd 3:3
  And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

This is what I perceive a sinner to get, the above mentioned scripture...Death (second death)...Or rather, everlasting destruction which fire represents...What's your take?

WELL DESTRUCTION IS THE ACTION OR PROCESS OF DESTROYING SOMETHING. THE SOUL IS DESCRIBED AS BEING INDESTRUCTIBLE, BUT VERY TORMENTABLE…SO EVERLASTING TORMENT AS DESCRIBED BY “WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH”. GNASHING MEANING, TO STRIKE OR GRIND TOGETHER…NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSCIOUSLY DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF GREAT PAIN.

NJ[/QUOTE]

[Kärnfysikern]

I think the net is the best place actually.

How many internet feuds escalated into jihads?

Well...recently that is lol.

WEBB... you remember that retard who made a real pest of himself in the religion forum a couple years back?

Threatening people and shit?



Bigen and Johan had a field day with him.

Ah.. those were the days.

-CNS

Those where the days The politics/religion forum spiced things up

[Kärnfysikern]

Those who reject God on earth are experiencing the the beginning of hell.

My non belife in god hasnt hurt me during my life so far, not anymore than my non belife in oden, thor, zeus or shiva. If its the beginning of hell then I cant say I fear the rest of it.

[Psychotron]

My non belife in god hasnt hurt me during my life so far, not anymore than my non belife in oden, thor, zeus or shiva. If its the beginning of hell then I cant say I fear the rest of it.

lol johan how long have you had that new name

[nojoke]

OUR REALITY IS COMPOSED OF THE NATURAL WORLD’S LAWS AS ESTABLISHED BY GOD. THEREFORE AS MENTIONED ABOVE IT IS NOT REALLY POSSIBLE TO RAISE ONE FROM THE DEAD, BUT GOD FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE OF OUR REALITY.

I agree!...God can do anything He wants...No doubt...Hence the promised ressurrection to mankind...

THUS I BELIEVE HELL FIRE IS INDEED NON-CONSUMING! ALSO AN ETERNAL SOUL WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS TO BOTH DEATH & FIRE. AND LASTLY, OF COURSE THERE IS PRECEDENT EVEN ON EARTH OF SUCH FIRE:

Not out of disrespect, but I disagree with this analogy...Here's why...

Eccl. 9:5,10 states: "See life with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life that He has given you under the sun, all the days of your vanity, for that is your portion in life and in your hard work with which you are working hard under the sun. 10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She´ol, the place to which you are going."...

In this writting it aludes to a person not being conscience of anything...So how could they feel pain?...Sheol is also rendered "hell" in some translations...Which means the "common grave" of man...Also, other translations rendered this to be "the world of the dead"...Here is another passage that backs this one up...

Ps. 146:4 says: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish"...

So then, if a man's thought's perish then he wouldn't be able to percieve a fiery torment, would he?...Now this brings to question does the soul survive the death of the body?...More scripts...

Ezek. 18:4 states: " Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die"...

Here it is saying that the soul literally dies, not that it moves on to an afterworld for punishment...Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France agrees with this...U can find this in La Parole de Dieu, p. 128...Here is another script to further this thought...

Romans 6:23 says: "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord"...

Besides, is "eternal torment" of the wicked compatible with God's personality?...Not from what I can tell...Here's why I think this...

Jer. 7:31 states: "And they have built the high places of To´pheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hin´nom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.’"...

I'm thinking that if God never let this situation come into His heart, surely He dose not have and use such a thing on a larger scale...How about u?...Here is a nice Illustration in regards to this...What would u think of a parent who held his child's hand over a fire to punish the child for wrongdoing?..."God is love"...(1 John 4:8)...Would He do what no right-minded human parent would do?...For sure not!...Also, let's go to the book of Genesis, here Adam was told what would happen if he disobeyed God...

Genesis 2:16,17 reads: "'And God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.'”

Notice how God did not say Adam would burn in a tormenting fire for enternity...He would "positively die"...Anyway, it would be interesting to hear your take on it...Peace!

• Exd 3:2
  And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed.
• Exd 3:3
  And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

No doubt in this case did the bush not burn to ashes...However, this was an act of God...Of course he can cause His laws to be reversed when needed...For instance when the red sea was parted, same thought...Bodies of water do not do that on there own, it was an act of God...One more script. that actually defines what the "lake of fire" really is....

Rev. 21:8 says: "But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.”

Here it is saying that the "lake of fire" literally means the "second death"...Question is what is the "second death"...Peace!

WELL DESTRUCTION IS THE ACTION OR PROCESS OF DESTROYING SOMETHING. THE SOUL IS DESCRIBED AS BEING INDESTRUCTIBLE, BUT VERY TORMENTABLE…SO EVERLASTING TORMENT AS DESCRIBED BY “WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH”. GNASHING MEANING, TO STRIKE OR GRIND TOGETHER…NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSCIOUSLY DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF GREAT PAIN.

I'm taking this "gnashing of teeth" to be figurative not literall...I'm convinced that the soul dies and we have to depend on the ressurection to live again...After all, why would there be a need for a ressurrection if people never really die?


NJ

[rockinred]

No joke,
I agree with you completely and could have talked about it through the scriptures as you showed above and I am familiar with all those, but didn't because I am really trying hard not to argue over things with other professed christians... not because i don't think it is important, but because there is already too much division amongst doctrines... I use to do this all the time, but I am trying not to anymore...

If you read my post above you probably figured I felt the same.... but the whole reason I brought this up in the very first place is to shed some light on what I have read that the scriptures actually say about this..

Many on here say they can't fathom being punished/tortured by a loving God for eternity etc.. and that is one reason they don't believe in the bible...I wanted to share that I agree, and that the scriptures don't even really say that you are punished in hell for eternity... the scripture tell me that you will die and perish... and Christ is the way to be brought back up from the dead to everlasting life. the Resurrection... you can go on about Lazarus' resurection too, but really I am not going to divide anymore and let god do his work.

I wanted some to know that the scripture does not support an eternal hell of punishing...how would that be fair to be punished for eternity for 20 years of bad doing... I would rather say, why was I made??? and I have really thought that, but actually the scripture only says we will die.....now that souns just to me. reward those who obey with life and let the dead remain in the state of death as was originally sentenced onto mankind through Adam "you shall surely die", not spend eternity in punishment....just die..

[Kärnfysikern]

lol johan how long have you had that new name

Cant even remember when I changed name anymore

[Tock]

OKAY, ALL THAT MAY BE TRUE AS WELL, BUT SOMEHOW YOU MISSED “HELL” THE PLACE OF OUTER DARKNESS, ORIGINALLY CREATED AS A PUNISHMENT AND TORTURE FOR FALLEN ANGELS, SO HERE:

• Mat 25:41
  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
• Mat 8:12
  But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mat 22:13
  Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mat 24:51
  And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mat 25:30
  And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Luk 13:28
  There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.

Huh . . . you cite all those Bible verses as if they had any validity.

As I've shown before (several times, actually), the New Testament is based on the Old Testament, and the OT is a bunch of BS.

Sheesh . . . do you need me to show how the OT is a bunch of BS -- AGAIN?

[Narkissos]

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



AH, EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS!
DON’T YOU RECALL THIS BEING COVERED?

Do you have any questions about the Bible?
(post #268)

DID YOU CHANGE SIDES PSYCH, YOUR ATTITUDE IN THIS THREAD IS DECISIVELY ANTI-GOD, UNLIKE MY THREAD.

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



IF NOT, IT IS CERTAINLY A GOOD ONE.

NARK,
BE SURE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ABOVE CITED LINK, I THINK YOU’LL FIND IT PARTICULARLY INTERESTING.
------------------

Thanks.

-CNS

[ecto9]

I'm just practicing a new trick I learned! Post 268:

Do you have any questions about the Bible?

[magic32]

so, to all who discredit the bible with some smart response, how about following up with some answers and meaning to our existence.... until then you are just narrow and skeptic...which is easy and simple minded... the exact thing you say you are not...

Exemplary!

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

NoJoke,

The Bible is a book that like many contemporary novels uses both wooden literal descriptions as well as allegorical ones.

You seem to be heavy on allegory (symbolic representation). Let me assure you that the numerous incidences of "gnashing of teeth" are literally indicative of great pain and suffering and not figurative. Run the phrase through an online concordance like Blue Letter for verification.

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

Permit me to TRY and clarify the soul/spirit/body relationship as depicted in scripture, and I think you’ll more clearly understand the verses you quoted.

The body obviously is physical, three dimensional, like that of a rock. The spirit is comprised of the mind (memory, thinking, etc.), will (ability to choose), and emotions (feelings), like those of many animals, I.E. a donkey is known for his stubbornness, elephants journey to the graveyard when one is dying, many pets display emotion, etc. But the thing that separates man from the rocks and animals is his soul. Biblically speaking, the soul is not only eternal but also a part of God, which is the actual reason for its eternality. God himself, unlike with animals that he simply created, breathed into the dust-fashioned body of Adam via the nostrils and thereby animated him quite differently. This “breath of life” caused him to become a living soul as well as mind & body.

• Gen 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I hope that clears up the how and why the soul cannot actually die.

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

Regarding the second death, as stated by Ecto9, the second death is essentially separation from God. Although He is omnipresent, God will restrain Himself in such a way as to not be present in Hell. Now here’s where it can sometimes get metaphorical, occasionally the Bible will say “destroyed, or die in Hell”, but it actually still means as illustrated in various other scriptures both the pain of torment and the absence of God…also illustrated by the incredible darkness as God is light:

• 1Jo 1:5 - This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
  
• Rev 21:23 - And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
  
• Rev 22:5 - And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Let’s look at this chronologically as well. We all know the odds of death are 1 to 1, e.g. everyone is going to die (unless alive and raptured at Christ’s return), bun nevertheless death is an appointment we must keep…stated in scripture thusly:

• Hbr 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

This is the first death...that of the body. The second part of the verse says, “but after this the judgment”. This not by happenstance alludes to the second death, which is not a similar mandate (not necessary, and wholly contingent upon how you're judged). You see after judgment you will either go on to eternal reward, or on to eternal damnation, I.E. the second death...death of the soul, e.g. separation from God (in Hell).

As DSM put it:

So i accept hell?

Well here’s the thing. All other religions have things that one must do in order to achieve salvation, but Christianity says that Christ has done it all, in His words “It is finished” Jhn 19:30. Therefore, no matter what you do (chores, tasks, or duties) these other religions still fall short because regardless of whether you pray eastward thrice daily, wash seven times in the pool of shalom, or abstain from certain foods the sin problem (past, present, and future) remains.

Christianity deals with the problem of sin differently, originally by making unblemished animal sacrifices (merely as show of good faith to God), and ultimately with Calvary and the blood of Christ/God Himself as the final offering of atonement. So if you are numbered among his followers, when God looks at your sin scarred body, only Christ’s redemptive blood is visible thereby covering your sin debt. The Old Testament signs and shadows of this were in the aforementioned temporary animal sacrifices, and well documented within the 10 Commandments story during which blood was put over the doorposts of the Israelites to signal the Angel of Death to passover (hence the holiday season)…again that blood covering was protective.

• 1Cr 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
  
• Rom 5:15 - But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

So to answer DSM4, “yes” not accepting Christ’s (the only way) remission of sins IS to accept or stay one’s present course towards Hell (again God is not sending you there it's like a highway you refuse to exit). Although there may be many ways to do many things, Christ made it abundantly clear that the path is singular and that there was NO OTHER WAY to God/The Father/Heaven:

• Jhn 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[goose]

For you magic,,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKnWxfc820c



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

[Tock]

so, to all who discredit the bible with some smart response, how about following up with some answers and meaning to our existence.... until then you are just narrow and skeptic...which is easy and simple minded... the exact thing you say you are not...

Truth is, there isn't any meaning to our existance other than the meaning we attach to it.

Christians give a Christian meaning to life, Buddists give Buddist meaning to life, Muslims give a Muslim meaning to life, etc etc etc.

That's all there is, mon petite. If the simple fact of the matter isn't palatable, if you need more comfort than the stark reality of the existance of matter, space, time, and energy give you, retreat into the invented fables of whichever religion makes you happy.


I guess you're "skeptical" to what seems reasonable to me . . . But, until someone comes along and proves their religion correct and all other religions wrong, I'll be skeptical to what the Bible says.

[rockinred]

Truth is, there isn't any meaning to our existance other than the meaning we attach to it.

Christians give a Christian meaning to life, Buddists give Buddist meaning to life, Muslims give a Muslim meaning to life, etc etc etc.

That's all there is, mon petite. If the simple fact of the matter isn't palatable, if you need more comfort than the stark reality of the existance of matter, space, time, and energy give you, retreat into the invented fables of whichever religion makes you happy.


I guess you take the "skeptic" attitude to what seems reasonable to me . . . But, until someone comes along and proves their religion correct and all other religions wrong, I'll be skeptical to what the Bible says.

That's it???....the ability to love, feel emotions, speak, communicate like we are doing now, happy, sad, joy, give, recieve, peace, etc... is all just made up by chance??? right and wrong??? all just made up by some dirt that by chance became us? Just pick any one of those words and meditate and think real hard on the meaning and tell me it is all just chance and luck...those words have deep meaning and explain things.... look around you, nothing can compare, no animal, no living species.... No way by chance.

when you stated cosmos, matter, space, time.... those are not as complex in meaning as the words I stated above... but they are words that WE created to describe actual things....

no way.. I am not going to buy into *********? I was taught that and believed it in school for many years until I went through many real life trials and tribulations that caused changes in my life... I've seen quite a few third world countries, famine, death in my household, war.... love and life.... all to powerful to chalk off as fantasy filled thoughts made up for our own pleasure or arguments only to perish when we return to the dust or cosmos.

I will agree with you that there are many gray areas in all religions that are causes for concern, but I am not going to go back to the religion or belief system of *********... that was when I didn't want to look deep or the beginning of my journey. I only now accept the fact that I don't understand everything and understand what God's plan is for every being and other religion... the fact for me is I don't need to know... I need to know about myself and my own salvation.

The truth is you post in everyone of these threads because you are looking too....just like we all are... the comment that you stated above just said "i don't know, but you don't either".... the truth is, you might be closer to the kingdom of god than many others and closer than you think... Now just open your heart and look.... forget doctrines and differences, who cares about that.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Its all about faith

Either got it or you don't

I don't think its right to say, "My religion is correct, ev1else is wrong and going to hell, blah blah blah"

To completely close and block out all the other religions in the world is fine. But to constantly say your right and write it in stone is foolish and selfish.

On the other hand, there could possibly be some God of some form. Who knows...

But these jesus freaks lol, already have their minds made up. Its their way, or the highway(hell)


Lets just all agree to disagree. Cuz like Pyschotron said, your not going to open your minds. Its the fear. religion makes people feel comfortable.

Like I said a million times. Truth is what you want it to be. Whose to say whose right and whose wrong?

So lets just move along.

btw, i was christian for 19 years, THEN opened my eyes. So don't sit there and say us non-christians need to open our eyes. In reality its you, who sits there with that fear, thus using religion to make yourself feel comfortable with life

I'll leave it with this:

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?


We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

[rockinred]

bigsexy,

wait, why do we have to move along now? it is just a thread to share points of view... why put closure?... there is no hostility going on?

I respect yours and any others perspective...

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

bigsexy,

wait, why do we have to move along now? it is just a thread to share points of view... why put closure?... there is no hostility going on?

I respect yours and any others perspective...

I suppose your right.

But you know these threads lol....

[Tock]

That's it???....the ability to love, feel emotions, speak, communicate like we are doing now, happy, sad, joy, give, recieve, peace, etc... is all just made up by chance???

Dunno if it was by chance or not. But just because your mind is accustomed to the notion of intelligent beings creating things, doesn't mean that's the only way we could have got here.

I'm hardly omniscient, and lots of people are smarter than I am. But I do know this -- the Bible is not to be taken literally, it is chuck full of tales, fables, and fiction, and its stories of creation and gods and afterlife is not the sort of thing I take seriously.

How we got here is how we got here. I probably won't be around when scientists finally piece together all the bits of info and figure out how it all happened. So, I won't worry about it, and I won't embrace fictions that make me feel better.

right and wrong???

What's Right and Wrong frequently depends on your viewpoint. To the cow about to be made into hamburger, eating meat is wrong. To the folks at a summer barbeque, it's a wonderful thing. Obeying the Commandment to "Keep the sabbath holy" is fine for slaves to orthodoxy, but not so good for businessmen. A vote for Obama would be right for America according to some folks, and terribly wrong for others. Under what circumstances is it right or wrong for a beggar to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving 3 year old daughter?

The truth is you post in everyone of these threads because you are looking too....just like we all are..

I've been looking for quite a while. I've blundered up a few dead ends, and am happy to share the benefit of my experience. But anymore, I'm of the opinion that all these religions are just someone else's fictions, other folk's attempts to make sense out of stuff that doesn't make sense. And their explanations don't make sense to me. Nothing does. So, I've made peace with the idea that I'm better off embracing a big question mark than a bloody cross with a bunch of nonsensical rules. You, however, haven't made the same life journey I have, so your conclusions will be different, and you're welcome to think whatever you would like to think.

Now just open your heart and look....

Nope. I've been down that "just open your heart and etc" bit before. What that actually means is, "just open yourself uncritically to this set of ideas . . ." and to do that is to embrace them as conclusions before actually putting them under critical examination. And that's a big mistake . . . Something I'm not gonna do again.

[Psychotron]

[Kärnfysikern]

so, to all who discredit the bible with some smart response, how about following up with some answers and meaning to our existence.... until then you are just narrow and skeptic...which is easy and simple minded... the exact thing you say you are not...

I dont believe Oden created the universe, does that mean I have to present a alternative reason to the meaning of my existance independent of Oden, otherwise Im simple minded?

For atheist there is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in oden or a invisible pinc unicorn at the dark side of the moon. No offence meant, but thats just the way I see it.

Without proof there is no reason to believe, with proof belife isnt needed.

That's it???....the ability to love, feel emotions, speak, communicate like we are doing now, happy, sad, joy, give, recieve, peace, etc... is all just made up by chance??? right and wrong??? all just made up by some dirt that by chance became us? Just pick any one of those words and meditate and think real hard on the meaning and tell me it is all just chance and luck...those words have deep meaning and explain things.... look around you, nothing can compare, no animal, no living species.... No way by chance.

Emotions are just chemical and electric interactions within our brain which we can even manipulate by toying around with EM fields and chemicals. There are *********ary explanations to why we became emotional animals and they all seem reasonable. It seems like most of our emotions exist in one way or another among most pack animals aswell. Love when a wolf mother takes care of its cub, curiosity when the cub searches through its sourounding, fear when a mouse is caught by a fox, joy when a dog sees his owner after a long day alone etc. Animals communicate in different forms, humans have just taken it a step further.

Humans, emotions, animals etc are not by chance, its by natural selection.