That is a new one for me. Never heard that theory before. Seems it would require some evidence that black holes move toward each other because eventually you would require a singularity.
A recent proposition that makes sense to me is that when the acceleration of space's expansion approaches infinity (the expansion being seen as not only accelerating but as having the acceleration accelerate), which would involve a "rip" in the fabric of space time, each particle left behind (by that time even black holes would have been ripped apart by the accelerating expansion) becomes a new inflationary universe.

At least it works conceptually.

when one orbits another, not when they orbit each other....and not at a rate we can detect. keep in mind the our moon's orbit is growing due to the momentum from the impact that formed it, and the Earth's spin pulling it forward. it stays in the sky not because it's orbit is stable, but because it's unstable.
But there would be such a force--the accelerating expansion of space.

The expansion of the universe is not a phenomenon of galaxies "moving" apart--it is a phenomenon of the expansion of space, with the galaxies carried along.

As this expansions accelerates, its ability to overcome local gravitational influences will increase.

when one orbits another, not when they orbit each other....and not at a rate we can detect. keep in mind the our moon's orbit is growing due to the momentum from the impact that formed it, and the Earth's spin pulling it forward. it stays in the sky not because it's orbit is stable, but because it's unstable.
My understanding is that the moon's orbit increases because of tidal effects combined with the conservation of angular momentum. This process weakens over time as the two objects become further apart and become "gravitationally locked" (always having the same face toward each other--the moon is now locked onto the earth, but the earth is not yet locked onto the moon, and may never be).

If you took all of the momentum out of the equation, then yes, they would. But the far more likely scenario is that they would orbit each other.
Two massive objects in orbit will emit gravity waves, slowly (veeeery slowly) causing the orbits to decay.

The big question, which is currently being debated is, "Is the expansion of the Universe accelerating or deccelerating?"

Accelerating supports the "ripping space apart" theory. Deccelerating supports the cyclic expanion contraction theory. Right now, I think the firmest position is that the universe is, in fact, expanding at an accelerated rate.

Two massive objects in orbit will emit gravity waves, slowly (veeeery slowly) causing the orbits to decay.
It would, but then all the mass-energy in the universe would cease to be concentrated into those two orbiting objects.

The big question, which is currently being debated is, "Is the expansion of the Universe accelerating or deccelerating?"

Accelerating supports the "ripping space apart" theory. Deccelerating supports the cyclic expanion contraction theory. Right now, I think the firmest position is that the universe is, in fact, expanding at an accelerated rate.
Cosmologists always assumed that the expansion of the universe was decelerating, simply because the initial impetus of the Big Bang would have to be countered by gravity. It never really occurred to anyone that things might not be that way--hence the oscillating universe theories.

Only recently has technology reached the point that the rate of change in the expansion of the universe can actually be measured, and it turns out that for the first few billion years of its existence the rate of expansion did decelerate--and then this stopped and an acceleration in the rate began to set in.

This is as one would expect if there exists a repulsive force in the universe--as matter got further apart gravity would become less effective by the inverse square law and eventually a point would be reached where the repulsive force became predominant.

Since this seems to be exactly what we see, the scientific consensus shifted to this view almost instantaneously once the data was understood. Of course this leaves an open question as to what might be the nature of this repulsive force.

Of course this leaves an open question as to what might be the nature of this repulsive force.
I think all the particles just got tired of the little Napsterbater particles heckling them all the time and decided to just get the fuck out of there.

A Challenge to All Christians

Is the Bible true? Are its verses correct in every word, being inspired by God? Or is the bible mythology, the flawed word of primitive men? Or are some parts inspired, and some parts flawed? If so, which parts are true and which parts are false, and how can one determine which is which?


Mark 16:18; “They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” (NIV)

“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (KJV)

According to the New Testament of the Christian Bible, they (people who believe in Jesus Christ) can handle snakes, presumably poisonous ones, without harm.

With this claim, religious faith enters the realm of testable science!!

Thus, I hereby issue a challenge for Bible believers to show their "faith".


Is Mark 16:18 a lie? Does the Holy Bible contain a falsehood? Is it telling you that you, as a true believer, can do something extremely dangerous without risk?

All Christians who claim belief in Jesus Christ are hereby challenged to handle a rattlesnake without physical protection, or drink a glass of arsenic (or any positively lethal substance), and seek no medical assistance afterward.

The act must be performed in the presence of skeptical observers, and for authenticity, skeptics should provide the snake and/or poison as well. Well, is your faith strong enough? Do you really believe as strongly as you think you do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following article first appeared in Freethought Today, Vol. 15, No. 9.

Bite Kills Snake-handling Minister

A preacher, whose wife died three years ago from a snakebite, succumbed himself on Oct. 3, after handling a 3-foot-long timber rattler during a prayer meeting.

John Wayne “Punkin” Brown Jr., 34, of Tennessee, was bitten on the hand while preaching at the Rocky House Holiness Church in rural Alabama. He continued preaching for ten or 15 minutes after being bitten, then fell dead from the pulpit. His wife Melinda, 28, died in 1994 two days after refusing medical attention following a rattlesnake bite during a church service in Kentucky.

“He was really looking forward to that day anyway” when he could see his wife again, opined the Rev. Carl Porter of Kingston, Georgia, to the Birmingham News. Porter plans to pass along Brown’s two rattlers to Brown’s brother, by the way.

The Browns had five children.

There have been at least 75 snake-handling deaths among fundamentalists in the United States during this Century.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This event is submitted as clearcut EVIDENCE that the sacred scriptures are untrue.

Some may say, “He was not a true believer.” Well, I submit that he was. He believed strongly enough to handle the snake. He was a minister. He had given over his life for his beliefs. He followed the word of God to the letter, and put his complete trust in the scripture. HE certainly thought that he believed. What more proof of belief could be provided? If that is not true belief, what is? Is your belief so strong?

Others may protest that he should not have tested the Lord. Well, it was the Lord, presumably, who inspired Mark (or whoever really wrote that book) to include that verse. After all, it is claimed that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. If God did not intend that people should make use of that verse as a guide for their lives, why did He include it at all? What other purpose could it possibly serve?

Some people suggest that this verse only applied to the original Apostles. BUT, that statement finds no support in scripture. If one reads verses 16 and 17, it becomes clear that Jesus was speaking about "them that believe", those that are baptized and saved. It does not say anything about the original Apostles being the only ones who can drink poison and handle snakes.

Preachers certainly make use of the second half of the verse “they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” You need only to turn on late night TV to see the proliferation of faith-healing charlatans, milking the public of their hard-earned funds, by pretending to heal their sicknesses. Why then should the first half of the verse Mark 16:18 be metaphorical, and the second half of it be literal? Such an argument is an avoidance of the irrationality of the philosophy. This is one more example of the harm that literal belief in the Bible can produce.

Just food for thought. ------- http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/snakebite.html


Why leave out the part where is says..they shall speak with new tongues?

Why leave out the part where is says..they shall speak with new tongues?

The parts about handling snakes and drinking poison were entirely adequate to illustrate the absurdity of the claim, without including the "speaking in tongues" nonsense.

I don't think it was only for the original receivers of The Holy Ghost, but I wonder how many have that kind of faith. And they did too have speaking in tongues but there were suppose to be people who understood it.

LOL. I've heard some apologetic nonsense, but this one wins the prize.

Here is the verse;

“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

Are you really going to try to convince me that what the Biblical verse in question actually meant to convey was --


“They shall pick up pagans or Druids; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them” ..............?!?!?!?

Do you have any inkling how utterly nonsensical it is to try to equate the action of 'picking up a Druid' with the action of 'drinking deadly poison'?!?!?

The two actions of *picking up a poisonous snake* and *drinking poison*, on the other hand, ARE related to one another.

First off and more importantly,yer ABSOLUTELY No match for
Me,Philosophically and Theologically.
I was trained in those disciplines and also have read nearly a 1.000
novels towards me enlightenment.
Kinda like - The Razors Edge -.
I'm a bit rusty,but basically the Bible is the inspired word of God.
God,acting as a Spiritual Muse,inspired the Prophets,Apostles and
those willing to demonstrate ultimate austere sincerity in the power
of faith.
There are many mysteries of faith,that Man is not capable of
understanding.
I digress.

The parts about handling snakes and drinking poison were entirely adequate to illustrate the absurdity of the claim, without including the "speaking in tongues" nonsense.

You have been on this theme for a couple weeks now; there are so many other problems in the Bible and in the history of Christianity you could raise, I think it is time to do so and leave this one alone for awhile.

You aren't going to persuade anyone of anything anyway, at least not quickly, so don't keep hammering at something until you get a concession. It won't happen. Give them the last word.

Changes in a person's world view (indoctrination) come as the result of the insertion of many questions, not just a surrender on one. What you want to do is introduce cognitive dissonance into the views--more and more things that leave them uneasy in what use to be a comfortable and dogmatic near certainty.

You have been on this theme for a couple weeks now; there are so many other problems in the Bible and in the history of Christianity you could raise, I think it is time to do so and leave this one alone for awhile.

Suggestion noted.

You aren't going to persuade anyone of anything anyway, at least not quickly, so don't keep hammering at something until you get a concession. It won't happen.

Oh, I have no expectation whatsoever of reaching the mentally imbalanced religionists and causing them to suddenly reject superstition and embrace reason and rationality.

I just like to call attention to the absurd things they believe........or at least, the things they claim belief in.

:woohoo:

____________________________

So!.........what is the score of the challenge so far?.....have any True Believers here drank any poison yet, or handled any vipers?...........Why not?!?.........the Bible says you can.

Demonstrate your "belief". Drink some poison today.

Mark 16:18
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
NKJV


First we are not to go drink poison "do not temp thy GOD", there are people who can handle snakes, but you miss the point we are not to do those things to test our LORD those would be done by people out preaching The Word and yes they will have to have faith.

No one should take you seriously you are a scoffer and should not be answered.

Mark 16:18
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
NKJV

First we are not to go drink poison .....

?!?!?

But your holy book says that believers can drink poison and not be harmed.........?!?

Do you have a cite for the Bible verse that says you are not to drink poison??

...there are people who can handle snakes,...

Uhh.....yeah. Although many of them --like the Reverend John Wayne “Punkin” Brown Jr. and his wife-- did not survive the encounter. (Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone nominated Mr Brown for the Darwin Awards...?)

but you miss the point we are not to do those things to test our LORD

Ok. Christians need not do it to "test" their unseen deity.

They should be willing to do it to demonstrate their 'faith', and to demonstrate that they believe the Bible speaks the truth.

But strangely, none of them here have done so. I'm beginning to sense they are afraid to follow up on scriptural claims.

http://www.dearallofyou.com/sacredheart

http://www.dearallofyou.com/sacredheart

That is a bizarre video.

The voice of the narrator is --we are given to believe-- that of an omnipotent and all powerful supernatural being known as "Jesus".

He is talking about how he "was with" all the people on 9/11, .......the people in the planes, the people in the towers, the pilots in the cockpits.......as if all of humankind should be thankful he was there.....

....when what would have been truly useful and beneficial to all those who died would have been for this supposed "all powerful" being to have simply prevented the planes from crashing into the WTC in the first place.

It would have cost him no effort whatsoever.......yet the planes crashed into the buildings as he (supposedly) stood by and watched........and we humans are supposed to worship this callous monster......?!?!?!?!

Unbelievable.

_______________________________

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” - Epicurus

Ah--the problem of the existence of evil in a world where there also exists an omnipotent, omnibeneficient God.

The Adam and Eve myth has been applied to this problem by inserting the idea of "free will" into the question, but this ignores the idea of omnipotence. We may not be able to imagine How he could do it, but an omnipotent being can do anthing, and that would include giving us both free wills and absence of evil. Being omnibeneficient, he would do so. So free will does not clarify but only obscures the issue.

Another way to see this point is to ask whether God couldn't have given us free will without so much suffering. Why not a little less--or even a little less than that--or even none at all. God is all powerful so it does not good to say he had to create suffering in order for us to have free will.

Ah--the problem of the existence of evil in a world where there also exists an omnipotent, omnibeneficient God.

The Adam and Eve myth has been applied to this problem by inserting the idea of "free will" into the question, but this ignores the idea of omnipotence. We may not be able to imagine How he could do it, but an omnipotent being can do anthing, and that would include giving us both free wills and absence of evil. Being omnibeneficient, he would do so. So free will does not clarify but only obscures the issue.

Another way to see this point is to ask whether God couldn't have given us free will without so much suffering. Why not a little less--or even a little less than that--or even none at all. God is all powerful so it does not good to say he had to create suffering in order for us to have free will.

Wow... you SO miss the point! FREE WILL is EXACTLY that! FREE WILL. To do as we please KNOWING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS and CHOOSING DO GO AGAINST THEM or OBEY THEM. There is NO "free will" if as you proclaim that the omni-potent/beneficent GAVE us "absences of evil"! That is basically saying we could not do EVIL because HE (omni-potent/beneficent) forbade it.

GOD does not cause suffering... WE DO! IF EVERYONE followed the rules then there would be no suffering! GOD'S greatest commandment was love one another! Do we do that? Does anyone do that these days? NYC cops shooting blacks because they were there? Illegals ignoring the laws and then wondering why people object? People objecting to illegals (I can understand this one...) because they are seeking a better life? Invading countries w/beliefs different then ours... the list can go on...

No... humans have created the "suffering" not GOD... we get what we give... no matter how justified we may think we are there are only 10 rules (Commandments) to follow. The average person has great difficulty with many of them...including myself....

"Free will isn't free"... LOL... ;)

GOD does not cause suffering... WE DO!

And you know that.........how?

IF EVERYONE followed the rules then there would be no suffering!

By that logic, if 3.9 billion of the world's four billion people followed your god's "rules" to the letter, but .1 billion did not, the 3.9 billion would STILL be forced to suffer because not *everyone* was being good.

Yeah.......what a fairminded fellow that would make your omnipotent 'god' if he actually arranged it like that. [/sarcasm]

GOD'S greatest commandment was love one another!...No... humans have created the "suffering" not GOD...

Really?

Did humans 'create' a hundred different forms of cancer (not to mention ten thousand other diseases) that torment mankind?

Did humans 'create' the tornados that sometimes rip the roofs off of both churches and strip clubs, killing all the terrified humans inside?

Did humans 'create' the mosquito, that sentences millions of poor people to a painful death every year in the equatorial areas?

According to that immense compendium of fables and contradictions known as "the Bible", your god created all of those things.

Yet when it comes time for an accounting, suddenly <gasp!>, "humans created it all!"

What nonsensical sophistry.

However, I bet you that if the world was a peaceful place and people did get along, most things that are problems today would not be because people could focus all their energies to overcoming them, instead of eachother.

.....if the world was a peaceful place and people did get along, most things that are problems today would not be because people could focus all their energies to overcoming them, instead of eachother.

Exactly so.

And some imaginary supernatural sky-daddy would need not play any part in it whatsoever.

______________________

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"?

geez FT really hates christianity...

have a cold one and relax

geez FT really hates christianity...

Not simply the Christians; I would despise any large group of superstitionists who insisted that I share their delusions and that I respect their invisible Father-in-the-Sky, and that I obey their myriad taboos, prejudices and prohibitions.

have a cold one and relax

If I were any more relaxed, i'd fall asleep. I can be relaxed and still speak out against the tyranny of the majority......especially when said majority is insane enough to believe that donkeys can talk, that water can be magically transformed into wine and that dead people can rise from their graves.

_________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

Not simply the Christians; I would despise any large group of superstitionists who insisted that I share their delusions and that I respect their invisible Father-in-the-Sky, and that I obey their myriad taboos, prejudices and prohibitions.


Then why is it you only speak out about Christianity? It's not like its the only religion that wants people to share in its myrid taboos.

Then why is it you only speak out about Christianity? It's not like its the only religion that wants people to share in its myrid taboos.

Yeah FT, spread the love around a little, cmon lol.

free thinker the statement below that you made is badly flawed.

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

I say
Evolution is the biggest lie and fairy tale. Nothing went bang lol. Where are all the changing animals you know the ones who are changing into an other kind of plant or animal. Funny how there aren't any is't it. Evolution can't get the past right let alone the here and now or the future. On the other hand The Bible has foretold about these things

One nation made in a day
gathering of the Jews from all the nations
increase of knowledge
wars, rumor of wars famine diease
Jews will make the desert bloom again which they have done. ( they are the only ones to make Israel bloom)

this also has happenplus many more things
The only dead language to be revived is Hebrew.
All of the items to be put into the new temple when it is built have been made and are waiting
Sanhedrin court has been brought back to life after 1600 yrs

Then why is it you only speak out about Christianity? It's not like its the only religion that wants people to share in its myrid taboos.

I'm going to guess that he is an American. As an American Christianity is the dominant religion around him and the one he is most familiar with. As a result it is the one he discusses. I'm sure if you asked him to he would discuss Islam or some other prosletyzing religion out there. He is just sticking to what he and most of us on this board are familiar with.

I say
Evolution is the biggest lie and fairy tale. Nothing went bang lol. Where are all the changing animals you know the ones who are changing into an other kind of plant or animal. Funny how there aren't any is't it. Evolution can't get the past right let alone the here and now or the future.

I've never understood this argument. Do you understand what evolution is? It is a GRADUAL change. Every generation some of the offspring of a species are born with little mutations. Maybe their skin is darker. Maybe their claws are longer. If it is beneficial then they will survive and reproduce. By reproducing they spread their genes until what was originally a mutation becomes common among the general population of their species. That is what most evolution is.

What you are referring to is punctuated equilibrium. That is where the long period of gradual evolution is suddenly interrupted by rapid change. This does happen but it is not the norm.

So to answer your question we do see animals change now, but only in small ways. Small differences between the generations. If you want to see real change find a species that reproduces quickly and often and you will see the change.

If you want evidence of change in humans just look at your pinky finger. Notice how much shorter it is than the rest of your fingers? It hasn't always been like that. Go back just a thousand years and you will find that in comparison to the rest of the fingers the pinky is growing shorter. Why? As we become more specialized and civilized we have less need for it.

muad_dib
God-Emperor
So to answer your question we do see animals change now, but only in small ways. Small differences between the generations. If you want to see real change find a species that reproduces quickly and often and you will see the change.


So what there should still be animals and plants with some really drastic changes. After millions of yrs and all the stuff running around now and you want to say we would only see small stuff, sooner or later it is going to show up in a big way , little by little the reptile changing to a bird well at some time those wings appeared even at a little at a time. If evolution were true there would be all kinds of living things in different stages but it ain't there.

here is a shocker, man walked with the dinos
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

So what there should still be animals and plants with some really drastic changes. After millions of yrs and all the stuff running around now and you want to say we would only see small stuff, sooner or later it is going to show up in a big way , little by little the reptile changing to a bird well at some time those wings appeared even at a little at a time. If evolution were true there would be all kinds of living things in different stages but it ain't there.


This is an article about recent mutations in cattle:

http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/ope/enotes/showarticle.cfm?id=14

Here is an article about recent mutations in hamsters:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/6/445

And if you don't believe in what the scientific community has to say about evolution why do you try turning to science to help your argument. Your links are flawed on a few counts. First, they are from a biased source. I don't deny that the blood cells are real. What I have a problem with is that Answers in Genesis is twisting the information to fit their preconceived conclusion. When dealing with science you can't do that and this leads to the second flaw.

Instead of using a biased secondary source why not go straight to the person doing the research. A brief Google search yielded an article from Smithsonian Magazine, a much less biased and much more respected source, that has actually talked to the scientist who made the amazing discovery. Here is what her response was to creationists trying to use her work for their own ends:

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Here is a direct link to the article in question:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php

The fact of the matter is this: what the existence of red blood cells in dinosaur bones shows is that we don't know as much about decay and fossilization as we think we do. The article says that more soft tissue has been found in other dinosaur bones and in fossilized mammoth bones that are 300,000 years old. This means that under certain conditions it seems that soft tissue can survive hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. It is something we did not know before and it is a new opportunity for research.

here is a shocker, man walked with the dinos
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

I think my IQ went down like 10 points reading those articles.

Wow... you SO miss the point! FREE WILL is EXACTLY that! FREE WILL. To do as we please KNOWING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS and CHOOSING DO GO AGAINST THEM or OBEY THEM. There is NO "free will" if as you proclaim that the omni-potent/beneficent GAVE us "absences of evil"! That is basically saying we could not do EVIL because HE (omni-potent/beneficent) forbade it.

I agree that we have free will...

GOD does not cause suffering... WE DO! IF EVERYONE followed the rules then there would be no suffering! GOD'S greatest commandment was love one another! Do we do that? Does anyone do that these days? NYC cops shooting blacks because they were there? Illegals ignoring the laws and then wondering why people object? People objecting to illegals (I can understand this one...) because they are seeking a better life? Invading countries w/beliefs different then ours... the list can go on...

God DOES test human beings.. look no further than the book of Job. He may cause suffering in your life, but from my experience its all for a better purpose. My mother, a christian now and back in her high school days, was in the hospital during her graduation because of depression, which runs in our family. She was validictorian, but was unable to make the event. She has delt with the effects for 40 years, has been in tears, but as my friends and new aquaintances observe, she is probably one of the happiest, nicest, smiley, respectful, goofy, loving human beings on our planet. However, she did, and still does, suffer.

No... humans have created the "suffering" not GOD... we get what we give... no matter how justified we may think we are there are only 10 rules (Commandments) to follow. The average person has great difficulty with many of them...including myself....

You are leaving Satan and evil out of the equation. Satan tempts us, and pretty much dominates our society today. I'm not saying our society worships satan, i'm saying our society is all about sex, impulse, judging, money, greed, etc...

And everyone breaks all ten commandments every day.

Originally Posted by lifelongnomad
GOD does not cause suffering... WE DO! IF EVERYONE followed the rules then there would be no suffering! GOD'S greatest commandment was love one another! Do we do that? Does anyone do that these days? NYC cops shooting blacks because they were there? Illegals ignoring the laws and then wondering why people object? People objecting to illegals (I can understand this one...) because they are seeking a better life? Invading countries w/beliefs different then ours... the list can go on...

If you mean we have to sin first possibly your right but GOD does send sickness

Originally Posted by lifelongnomad
GOD does not cause suffering... WE DO! IF EVERYONE followed the rules then there would be no suffering! GOD'S greatest commandment was love one another! Do we do that? Does anyone do that these days? NYC cops shooting blacks because they were there? Illegals ignoring the laws and then wondering why people object? People objecting to illegals (I can understand this one...) because they are seeking a better life? Invading countries w/beliefs different then ours... the list can go on...

If you mean we have to sin first possibly your right but GOD does send sickness
You think God "sends sickness" and still you worship him? I must say that flabbergasts me. Where is your moral sense?

You think God "sends sickness" and still you worship him? I must say that flabbergasts me. Where is your moral sense?


I think hes going to send you to Hell and I still worship him. It's not in what God does its in what man does.

I think hes going to send you to Hell and I still worship him. It's not in what God does its in what man does.
What you represent gives me the creeps. I cannot say less.

There are, of course, people in every religon who make God's judgments for him and rather enjoy the idea that those they think are wrong will be tortured throughout eternity.

It is not just an immoral idea, but such an irrational idea. God punishes (or rewards) through all eternity for offenses (or good deeds) committed in a short human lifespan. That is just so absurd.

People do not commit offenses in a vacuum--"ah, let's commit a sin and get committed to Hell." How absurd. People sometimes do evil things, but, as Christ is reported to have said, "They do not know what they are doing." He preceeded that with, "Father, forgive them."

We are all (with a few exceptions) desirous of doing what is right--the offenses come out of ignorance or weakness, not evil. Your irrational and hateful attitude needs to be overcome. It does you no good and may end up doing you immense harm.

What you represent gives me the creeps. I cannot say less.

There are, of course, people in every religon who make God's judgments for him and rather enjoy the idea that those they think are wrong will be tortured throughout eternity.

It is not just an immoral idea, but such an irrational idea. God punishes (or rewards) through all eternity for offenses (or good deeds) committed in a short human lifespan. That is just so absurd.

People do not commit offenses in a vacuum--"ah, let's commit a sin and get committed to Hell." How absurd. People sometimes do evil things, but, as Christ is reported to have said, "They do not know what they are doing." He preceeded that with, "Father, forgive them."

We are all (with a few exceptions) desirous of doing what is right--the offenses come out of ignorance or weakness, not evil. Your irrational and hateful attitude needs to be overcome. It does you no good and may end up doing you immense harm.


Exactly, now take what you said here and put it in a Christian context.

Exactly, now take what you said here and put it in a Christian context.I'm pretty sure he did:

People sometimes do evil things, but, as Christ is reported to have said, "They do not know what they are doing." He preceeded that with, "Father, forgive them."

You think that is a Buddhist context?

I'm pretty sure he did:

People sometimes do evil things, but, as Christ is reported to have said, "They do not know what they are doing." He preceeded that with, "Father, forgive them."

You think that is a Buddhist context?

No, he quoted something, that doesnt mean he understands it.

No, he quoted something, that doesnt mean he understands it.So you are asking someone who, according to you, doesn't understand what he's quoting to put the quote into a context that he also presumably does not understand.

Wouldn't it make more sense to tell him why you think he doesn't understand the quote?

Or maybe it's one of those you'll never get it if you're not a Christian concepts.

So you are asking someone who, according to you, doesn't understand what he's quoting to put the quote into a context that he also presumably does not understand.

Wouldn't it make more sense to tell him why you think he doesn't understand the quote?

Or maybe it's one of those you'll never get it if you're not a Christian concepts.

I'm telling someone who is telling me they understand Christianity that they dont understand it.

But he does understand that "What you represent gives me the creeps."
and "They do not know what they are doing." He preceeded that with, "Father, forgive them."
"--the offenses come out of ignorance or weakness, not evil."

We all have the ability to overcome our ignorance. If youre smart enough to figure out that, "committed in a short human lifespan. That is just so absurd."
Then you should be smart enough to figure out what sin is and that there is a God who forgives it, within this lifetime.

No, he quoted something, that doesnt mean he understands it.
Why shouldn't I understand it? It seems plain English. What do you think it means?

I'm telling someone who is telling me they understand Christianity that they dont understand it.

But he does understand that "What you represent gives me the creeps."
and "They do not know what they are doing." He preceeded that with, "Father, forgive them."
"--the offenses come out of ignorance or weakness, not evil."

We all have the ability to overcome our ignorance. If youre smart enough to figure out that, "committed in a short human lifespan. That is just so absurd."
Then you should be smart enough to figure out what sin is and that there is a God who forgives it, within this lifetime.
I know what "sin" is--it is an invention of the Christian religion to create a need for forgiveness, and hence an element of the guilt Christianity loads on people.

In my present religion I have come to understand that "sin" is an illusion. When we harm others, we must do whatever we can to set things right, and otherwise to live with the consequences. There is no role for "forgiveness," since there is no one to forgive us except ourselves, and we are able to rise above such instincts.

I know what "sin" is--it is an invention of the Christian religion to create a need for forgiveness, and hence an element of the guilt Christianity loads on people.

In my present religion I have come to understand that "sin" is an illusion. When we harm others, we must do whatever we can to set things right, and otherwise to live with the consequences. There is no role for "forgiveness," since there is no one to forgive us except ourselves, and we are able to rise above such instincts.

Present religion? What are you changing them like underwear?

As touchy as you seem in your post style and the way I've seen you talk to the people who upset you here, I highly doubt you've learned anything from the religion.

Present religion? What are you changing them like underwear?

As touchy as you seem in your post style and the way I've seen you talk to the people who upset you here, I highly doubt you've learned anything from the religion.

Actually I would think it is the exact opposite. By implying that his religion has changed overtime wouldn't that show that he has adjusted it to what he has learned and experienced? If you learned that your religion was not what you thought it was wouldn't you change it too?

Actually I would think it is the exact opposite. By implying that his religion has changed overtime wouldn't that show that he has adjusted it to what he has learned and experienced? If you learned that your religion was not what you thought it was wouldn't you change it too?


So, hes not changing underwear, hes changing the religion itself?

I do not know what his beliefs are. It just seemed to me that your interpreted what he said about them wrong.

I do not know what his beliefs are. It just seemed to me that your interpreted what he said about them wrong.

I probably did.

Present religion? What are you changing them like underwear?

As touchy as you seem in your post style and the way I've seen you talk to the people who upset you here, I highly doubt you've learned anything from the religion.
I am touchy with fundamentalists who teach horrible things like Hell and the Devil to children.

I am touchy with fundamentalists who teach horrible things like Hell and the Devil to children.


I can only assume you mean me?
Are you a child? I assumed you werent, you have talked about having a wife.
I'll ask Nap if he's ever brought the subject of Hell and the devil up to you.


I'm beginning to wonder if your religion would require that Christianity be wrong for yours to be right.

So, hes not changing underwear, hes changing the religion itself?
Intelligent, open minded people who were raised in Christianity will do one of two things.

Often they will become complete non-religionists, if not anti-religionists.

More often they become liberal Christians, not really believing all the myths, but still retaining a spiritual element in their lives. I was one of the latter. I think religion is a positive--even Christianity in many people--and so even though I long ago gave up believing any of the Christian story, I maintained church membership. There is much good in Christian living.

However, when we went to Vietnam my wife and I decided that rather than seek out a Christian church (pretty much the only ones here are Roman Catholic, and that is too much dogmatism for us), we thought we would try out Buddhism--not as a belief but as a source of spirituality.

Lo and behold it took hold. Frankly I look back at it with astonishment. I just expected a comfortable spirituality. Instead I found much more. I learned to meditate; I learned Buddhist ethics (a great improvement over the power mentality of Christians); I learned Buddhist cosmology and psychology and physics (not "scientific," but fully consistent with science--something only some Western religions have only begun to achieve.

I could go on, but my purpose is not to preach Buddhism, hard as it is to refrain.

I can only assume you mean me?
Are you a child? I assumed you werent, you have talked about having a wife.

You know, your insults really don't sound Christian.


I'll ask Nap if he's ever brought the subject of Hell and the devil up to you.


You told me several days ago I was going to Hell. Since Hell is one of my favorite subjects--it is so damn irrational and immoral it makes a tremendous whip to beat a certain kind of Christian with <grin>, that I always take up the topic whenever someone does that.

I'm beginning to wonder if your religion would require that Christianity be wrong for yours to be right.

My religion is not right or wrong, it just is a tradition that I find helpful and meaningful. Christianity is not "wrong" either. What might be wrong is taking the myths and dogmas of either tradition as literal truth.

Present religion? What are you changing them like underwear?
LOL! This is a guy with a sense of humor!

I'll ask Nap if he's ever brought the subject of Hell and the devil up to you.
It is hell to try to win an argument against me. :D

LOL! This is a guy with a sense of humor!


It is hell to try to win an argument against me. :D
It seems you two share a rather sad sense of humor--one that gets pleasure out of ridiculing and trying to damage other people. Kinda like a bunch of kids thinking it is funny to set fire to stray dogs.

LOL! This is a guy with a sense of humor!


Thank you, thank you very much! :thumbs:

It seems you two share a rather sad sense of humor--one that gets pleasure out of ridiculing and trying to damage other people. Kinda like a bunch of kids thinking it is funny to set fire to stray dogs.

Sadly I wasnt ridiculing you, I was trying to point something out.
But I do it to, so I'm not one to talk.

So, you'll remain in the dark.

It seems you two share a rather sad sense of humor--one that gets pleasure out of ridiculing and trying to damage other people. Kinda like a bunch of kids thinking it is funny to set fire to stray dogs.
What silliness. To compare foruming to setting fire to dogs. I'll never comprehend the way you think, Thislin.

Sadly I wasnt ridiculing you, I was trying to point something out.
But I do it to, so I'm not one to talk.

So, you'll remain in the dark.
I have a problem with your claiming you did not intend ridicule. Let me quote what you said:

"What are you, changing religions like underwear?"

What silliness. To compare foruming to setting fire to dogs. I'll never comprehend the way you think, Thislin.
This is hard to respond to intelligently without getting maudlin, but I will try.

You and your opposite number at the other extreme of the religious spectrum ("Inviolable") lack empathy, and are only able to project your amusement onto others, rather than understanding the realities.

Ahh, I see now. You're an idiot! Glad we cleared that up!

Ahh, I see now. You're an idiot! Glad we cleared that up!



Thanks alot! I got coke all over my monitor after reading that!

I was doing you a favor. I bet you haven't given the poor thing a drink in years! It's been sitting there, watching you drink frosty coke after frosty coke, and do you ever offer it any? No!

I've been away from the forum a month or so and come back to find thread after thread chockablock with this guy's insults. What a bore, lol.

I was doing you a favor. I bet you haven't given the poor thing a drink in years! It's been sitting there, watching you drink frosty coke after frosty coke, and do you ever offer it any? No!

I was kind of shocked when it said, thank you.

I've been away from the forum a month or so and come back to find thread after thread chockablock with this guy's insults. What a bore, lol.

I just don't have it in me right now to counterweight all his crap. People were worried that I would drive him away when he first started posting. I knew better, hah. He's like a Christian troll, but he's so boring that no one wants to bother arguing with his crap, even if they did, all they'd get is being told they're "full of hate." et. al.

"Does everybody think you're an idiot? Or just the people I know?"

I was kind of shocked when it said, thank you.
Ooh, you got one of the rare, "Monitus Linguis" picture boxes! It's too bad you didn't do that earlier, you could have trained it to have conversations! As it is, all it has to go on is the literacy rate of kids on the internet. :(

I've been away from the forum a month or so and come back to find thread after thread chockablock with this guy's insults. What a bore, lol.
What insults? Actually your message was an insult, if you stop and think about it.

What I am posting about Christianity is the view that Christianity was not out of the Synagogue but out of the "pagan" Hellenistic (Greek) mystery tradition. This is contrary to what Christians want so much to be true that they respond with ridicule and hate, but never seem to dig into the arguments I present.

What happened is fairly simple to see if one breaks out of the box of Christian assumptions. In the Hellenistic world there were numerous "betrayal-murder-resurrection-salvation" cults. Each told a similar story--of a demiurge (half man half god) who lived in "mythic time" where he was betrayed by someone close to him (Judas), was murdered (the Crucifixion), was resurrected and who, through some ritual consumption of the blood and body of the resurrected being provided the only route to salvation.

Each of these cults had a different demiurge--taken from the religions of the then known world--so you have one from Thrace (Heracles), another from Egypt (Osiris), another form Persia (Mithra) and one from Palestinian belief (the Messiah).

I just don't have it in me right now to counterweight all his crap.

Like what "crap?" The only thing I said about you is that your "sense of humor" seems to be different from mine--you tend to be sadistic. I guess that is an insult if you want to take it that way, but what I am doing is just trying to describe the level of your humor.

Oh--we do disagree on the value of religion in people's lives; I think it has much to offer, but you only reject. Is my view "crap?" Methinks you think anything different from your views is "crap."

People were worried that I would drive him away when he first started posting. I knew better, hah. He's like a Christian troll, but he's so boring that no one wants to bother arguing with his crap, even if they did, all they'd get is being told they're "full of hate." et. al.

I dunno if boredom is the real reason no Christian seems to argue with me (except Stark). I think otherwise since I get hostile and spiteful reactions--this is not a sign of boredom. The fact is, no Christian has even tried argument, in my opinion probably because they don't know enough about the subject to feel confident doing so (all I get is just "you are a moron," and so on). That is a sad commentary on people who tell us they are Christians but they don't even know the scholarly work done on its history. They only read Christian apologetics.

You did try to argue with me on a hair-splitting bit, neither of us was persuaded by the other. What is so "boring" about that? Are you upset that I didn't tell you your argument was so persuasive I had no choice but to change my mind? I think you are about "winning," not about learning or teaching.

I must say you are full of yourself that you think you could drive someone away.

That fundamentalists, both the religious types and the anti-religious types, generally have a large dollop of hate in them should be obvious enough.

What insults?Is that a joke? This forum is plastered with your insults across thread after thread. Mind you, kudos for summoning your will power and not insulting me in in your response (your trademark death-by-tedium factor notwithstanding).
Actually your message was an insult, if you stop and think about it.Worse than an insult. I was speaking about you to others within your earshot.

What insults? Actually your message was an insult, if you stop and think about it.

What I am posting about Christianity is the view that Christianity was not out of the Synagogue but out of the "pagan" Hellenistic (Greek) mystery tradition. This is contrary to what Christians want so much to be true that they respond with ridicule and hate, but never seem to dig into the arguments I present.


O.K, I'm a Christian and I'll argue it with you and I will be as nice as I can.
With no sarcasim behind it, let me apologise for what I said earlier.
So we can have a fresh start.
I will start off by being as honest as I can. Your point of view on this topic is confusing and it seems to be confusing because you made it that way.

Hellenistic in nature means, and I quote "of or pertaining to the Greeks or their language, culture, etc., after the time of Alexander the Great, when Greek characteristics were modified by foreign elements. Compare Hellenic (def. 1)."
Or
"The term Hellenistic (derived from Ἕλλην Héllēn, the Greeks' traditional self-described ethnic name) was established by the German historian Johann Gustav Droysen to refer to the spreading of Greek culture over the non-Greek people that were conquered by Alexander the Great. According to Droysen, the Hellenistic civilization was a fusion of Greek and Near Eastern cultures. The main cultural centers expanded from mainland Greece, to Pergamon, Rhodes, Antioch and Alexandria."

From my understanding the term Hellenistic describes a foriegn element that came about only after culters were forced to merge.
So there were different culters living under the same rule. To call them all the same and relate them all to Greek in nature would be like saying an American in Korea is now Korean.
While the former American is now called a Korean, the person still has their original background of being an American.
Now lets say Korea takes over America, the result would lead to a rather larg amount of Americans who don't want to be Korean.

Have you every taken the time to familiarise yourself with the Maccabeus?
Theres a prime example. The Jewish revolt.
So while some of the bible came about as Hellenistic and admittedly almost all of the New Testament is writen in Greek, it was one of those foriegn elements that was forced to merge.

Thats not my opinion, its historical fact.
If we get down to it, Christianity really came down to a peoples desire to set themselves apart, more then it came from anything else.

We're actually learning about the Hellenistic world in my history class right now, and I can certainly attest to the fact that Hellenistic Greece was completely different than Hellenic, or Classical, Greece... For example, Hellenistic Greece was full of "mystery cults", such as Mithraism and the worshipers of Dionysos (all of which bear a striking resemblance to Christianity, by the way), rather than the Classical norm of generic, polis-sanctioned worship. This was due to Alexander the Great's political amalgamation of the Hellenic empire with the conquered Persian empire. His decidedly Persian tendency to refer to himself as a god didn't fit in with the Greeks' ideas about religion. His efforts towards intermarriage between Greeks and Persians and his allowance of Persian customs in his court made for a considerable amount of cultural mixing between the Hellenic and Middle Eastern societies, leading to the particular state of religion at the time. Many different cults sprung up, and they worshiped amalgamations of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Egyptian deities.

Not that I know how this came into the discussion at all, but I thought I'd take the chance to show off some knowledge. :)

Is that a joke? This forum is plastered with your insults across thread after thread. Mind you, kudos for summoning your will power and not insulting me in in your response (your trademark death-by-tedium factor notwithstanding).
Worse than an insult. I was speaking about you to others within your earshot.
Is your "death by tedium" an insult by any chance? You accuse me of insults, but when I ask for specifics, you don't produce, but only repeat the accusation.

To be honest, I am not interested in such personal distractions, but in discussing serious matters. Since you find such things boring, just put me on your ignore list and you won't be bothered any more.

We're actually learning about the Hellenistic world in my history class right now, and I can certainly attest to the fact that Hellenistic Greece was completely different than Hellenic, or Classical, Greece... For example, Hellenistic Greece was full of "mystery cults", such as Mithraism and the worshipers of Dionysos (all of which bear a striking resemblance to Christianity, by the way), rather than the Classical norm of generic, polis-sanctioned worship. This was due to Alexander the Great's political amalgamation of the Hellenic empire with the conquered Persian empire. His decidedly Persian tendency to refer to himself as a god didn't fit in with the Greeks' ideas about religion. His efforts towards intermarriage between Greeks and Persians and his allowance of Persian customs in his court made for a considerable amount of cultural mixing between the Hellenic and Middle Eastern societies, leading to the particular state of religion at the time. Many different cults sprung up, and they worshiped amalgamations of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Egyptian deities.

Not that I know how this came into the discussion at all, but I thought I'd take the chance to show off some knowledge. :)


Quite impressive.

Posted in response to msg 472 by "Inviolable."

I know about the Maccabeean revolts. In fact, it has occurred to me several times that this may well have been the way the knowledge that the Jews of the time had a particular concept of the "Messiah" became widespread. Antiochus's difficulties would have been "the news" for several decades.

Thus, later (or maybe not later--who knows), a group of Greeks who were fishing around for a potential center of a new mystery cult took up this idea, leading them to the LXX and naturally to Isaiah. Combine these prophesies with Hellenistic mystery cult ideas and you have Christianity as seen in Paul's genuine writings.

(Other similar groups did the same thing with Persian, Egyptian, Thracian, and other religions).

After Paul, a number of Jesus biographies evolved, which filtered down to the Gospels we now have (the evolution of myth tends to get restricted when there are written sources).

I am not quite sure what your point is in your lesson about Hellenism. As a general rule, we use "Hellenistic" to refer to Greek culture after Alexander. It applies to Greece proper and the Greek colonies, both those founded by Alexander (such as Alexandria in Egypt) and those that had been founded earlier (such as in Sicily).

It is worth keeping in mind that Hellenistic society was not replaced by the Romans, but that the Romans merely formed a thin veneer over it, and for the most part adopted it (in the East). Still, the Greek language never became the main language of places like the interior of Asia Minor (it did centuries later), Syria or Palestine or, especially, Egypt. The native cultures remained intact with the Greek influence limited to a few centers.

Response to message 473 by "Darkfantasy"

If you put together a number of lines of evidence, such as:

1. The remarkable similarities in Christianity with the other Greek cults.

2. The fact that the entire NT is in Koine Greek, reflecting Greek attitudes (such as "Jesus of Nazareth" or the presence of hog raising), reflecting Greek popular philosophy (especially the Neo-Platonism of John--the "Logos" and all that).

3. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT--reflecting the fact that Greeks would have used the LXX (where it was suppressed) while Palestinians would at least have shown some awareness that it even existed.

4. The ritual of baptism, which was normal in the mystery cults but absent from anything in Judea.

5. The absence of any historical mention of any Nazareth until what is now "Nazareth" was founded in the third century.

6. The absence of any historical mention of any wonder-worker "Jesus" except for the fraudulent insertion into Josephus.

One can see the rationality behind the reason I think Christianity was a Hellenistic rather than Palestinian development (let alone Jewish--the blood issue by itself would have been horrifying to any Jew).

Let me add that this does not detract from Christianity. It is not necessary to have the myths of a religions origin be historically "correct" for the religion itself to be valid and uplifting and worthy.

(You should see the discussions I get into with some literalistic Buddhists about some of the Buddha myths, but at least they don't react with anger or blunt rejection).

Indeed, Thislin, I've come to much the same conclusion...

Like what "crap?" The only thing I said about you is that your "sense of humor" seems to be different from mine--you tend to be sadistic. I guess that is an insult if you want to take it that way, but what I am doing is just trying to describe the level of your humor.

Oh--we do disagree on the value of religion in people's lives; I think it has much to offer, but you only reject. Is my view "crap?" Methinks you think anything different from your views is "crap."



I dunno if boredom is the real reason no Christian seems to argue with me (except Stark). I think otherwise since I get hostile and spiteful reactions--this is not a sign of boredom. The fact is, no Christian has even tried argument, in my opinion probably because they don't know enough about the subject to feel confident doing so (all I get is just "you are a moron," and so on). That is a sad commentary on people who tell us they are Christians but they don't even know the scholarly work done on its history. They only read Christian apologetics.

You did try to argue with me on a hair-splitting bit, neither of us was persuaded by the other. What is so "boring" about that? Are you upset that I didn't tell you your argument was so persuasive I had no choice but to change my mind? I think you are about "winning," not about learning or teaching.

I must say you are full of yourself that you think you could drive someone away.

That fundamentalists, both the religious types and the anti-religious types, generally have a large dollop of hate in them should be obvious enough.
Your 'crap', is unreadable, pedantic garbage, that may or may not have a little insight baked in. It stuffs the religion section. If it were better written, less musty, and more accessible to laymen, (I'm a layman) I wouldn't have a problem. But you have the sense of humor of a petrified stick, and the sensitivities of a prudish grandma.

And, if you had bothered to read what I had written, you would have seen it was the others who thought I would drive you away. I knew better. Twits can't seem to stay away.

Posted in response to msg 472 by "Inviolable."

I know about the Maccabeean revolts. In fact, it has occurred to me several times that this may well have been the way the knowledge that the Jews of the time had a particular concept of the "Messiah" became widespread. Antiochus's difficulties would have been "the news" for several decades.

Thus, later (or maybe not later--who knows), a group of Greeks who were fishing around for a potential center of a new mystery cult took up this idea, leading them to the LXX and naturally to Isaiah. Combine these prophesies with Hellenistic mystery cult ideas and you have Christianity as seen in Paul's genuine writings.

(Other similar groups did the same thing with Persian, Egyptian, Thracian, and other religions).

After Paul, a number of Jesus biographies evolved, which filtered down to the Gospels we now have (the evolution of myth tends to get restricted when there are written sources).

I am not quite sure what your point is in your lesson about Hellenism. As a general rule, we use "Hellenistic" to refer to Greek culture after Alexander. It applies to Greece proper and the Greek colonies, both those founded by Alexander (such as Alexandria in Egypt) and those that had been founded earlier (such as in Sicily).

It was to show that the religion has origins outside of the Hellenistic life style.
You cant deny that the books of Moses are entirely Jewish in nature. The fact that the Maccabeean's revolted shows the length at which the Jews were willing to go to keep what was Jewish, Jewish.
Has we see later in history and has you have said yourself, Paul picks them up and begins a new chapter in the religion. What hasnt been pointed out is that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and not Roman, although he was a Roman citizen his origins are of Jewish nature.
The birth of the Hebrew shows us the transistion from Jew to Hellenistic Jew.

Which in and of itself demonstrates the need to preserve the Jewish culter in one form or another.

It was to show that the religion has origins outside of the Hellenistic life style.
You cant deny that the books of Moses are entirely Jewish in nature. The fact that the Maccabeean's revolted shows the length at which the Jews were willing to go to keep what was Jewish, Jewish.
Has we see later in history and has you have said yourself, Paul picks them up and begins a new chapter in the religion. What hasnt been pointed out is that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and not Roman, although he was a Roman citizen his origins are of Jewish nature.
The birth of the Hebrew shows us the transistion from Jew to Hellenistic Jew.

Which in and of itself demonstrates the need to preserve the Jewish culter in one form or another.
Well obviously the whole Old Testament is Jewish... No one is contesting that. I think Thislin was saying that Christianity (which is, obviously, predated by the Old Testament) originated as a Greek mystery cult, and not as a pure offshoot of Judaism.

Well obviously the whole Old Testament is Jewish... No one is contesting that. I think Thislin was saying that Christianity (which is, obviously, predated by the Old Testament) originated as a Greek mystery cult, and not as a pure offshoot of Judaism.

Well, how about if I say it a different way through a form of conjecture.
Not that it is what I mean but so you can understand what I said a little better.

Lets say the Jews seen that it was possible their religion could have been wiped out. Not all of them just a select group, who later became known as Hebrews.
Their leader writes in a new chapter to preserve the Jewish religion in a different form. Which is now called Christianity.

So instead of Paul picking up something that was made in the same style as a cult by the same people who wrote all the other cults, Paul picks up the new Hebrew chapter that was writen by Hellenistic Jews and runs with it.
In essence, that is what happened and it is writen in history has happening that way.

I'd like some proof for that. If it was proven there would not need to be any "conjecture".

I think everything about the bible is true...the problem is that we don't understand the message clearly that it sends out.

I'd like some proof for that. If it was proven there would not need to be any "conjecture".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
Christianity retained a great many practices from its ancestral religion. Christianity considered the Jewish scriptures to be authoritative and sacred, employing mostly the Septuagint edition and translation as the Old Testament, and added other texts as the New Testament canon developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Origins_of_Hebrew
Archaic Biblical Hebrew from the 10th to the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the Monarchic Period until the Babylonian Exile and represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), notably the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5). Also called Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew. Historically, it used a form of the Canaanite script.

# Mishnaic Hebrew from the 1st to the 3rd or 4th century CE, corresponding to the Roman Period after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the bulk of the Mishnah and Tosefta within the Talmud and by the Dead Sea Scrolls, notably the Bar Kokhba Letters and the Copper Scroll. Also called Tannaitic Hebrew or Early Rabbinic Hebrew.

Sometimes the above phases of spoken Classical Hebrew are simplified into "Biblical Hebrew" (including several dialects from the tenth century BCE to 2nd century BCE and extant in certain Dead Sea Scrolls) and "Mishnaic Hebrew" (including several dialects from the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century CE and extant in certain other Dead Sea Scrolls).[3] However today, most Hebrew linguists classify Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew as a set of dialects evolving out of Late Biblical Hebrew and into Mishnaic Hebrew, thus including elements from both but remaining distinct from either.[4] By the start of the Byzantine Period in the 4th century CE, Classical Hebrew ceases as a spoken language, roughly a century after the publication of the Mishnah, apparently declining since the aftermath of the catastrophic Bar Kokhba War around 135 CE.



Pauls background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus#Early_life
"he studied in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel, well known in Paul's time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel
Gamaliel the Elder
Because of his sympathetic attitude to the early Christians, at an early date Christian ecclesiastical tradition has supposed that Gamaliel I embraced the Christian faith, and remained a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of secretly helping his fellow-Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin
Sanhedrin
The Greek root for the name suggests that the name was adopted during the Hellenistic period. Judaism asserts that the concept was founded by Moses, at the command of God. The Torah records God commanded Moses as follows:
"Assemble for Me (Espah-Li) seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the people's elders and officers, and you shall take them to the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with you."[3]

I thought you were saying that Christianity was meant as a "new chapter" of Judaism, to be somehow within the old religion. Those sources don't really prove that...

I thought you were saying that Christianity was meant as a "new chapter" of Judaism, to be somehow within the old religion. Those sources don't really prove that...

I am saying Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion, its more or less an exstention and thats what is proven.
It didnt say that?

Posted in reply to Msg. 408 by "Inviolable."

The Christian religion was quite un-Jewish--especially the drinking of Christ's blood (whether symbolic or miarculous doesn't matter). Baptism as a right of entry into the group was also unknown, yet we see the NT treating it as though it were commonplace--as it was in Hellenistic cults.

The thing that makes it seem Jewish is that they took up Messianism, and perforce took up the OT (although in its Greek version). Later, when the Jesus story evolved, he necessarily was put in Palestine.

I am saying Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion, its more or less an exstention and thats what is proven.
It didnt say that?
Saying that Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion is roughly the same as saying that CaoDaism has its roots in Buddhism, or that the American "RamaSutra" people (I forget their name) have their roots in Hinduism.

There was then, as now, a lot of syncretism all over the place, sometimes resulting in strange mixtures. Then, as time passed, those that persisted would evolve into something more generally palatable.

The earliest Christians (before Paul) seem to have been enamored of Judaism as they understood it (through Hellenistic cultic eyes) and could see the potential of the Messianic prophesies, so they took them up. That does not make Christianity an offshoot of Judaism, but instead a syncretism of Hellenistic religious thinking and certain Jewish ideas.

Posted in reply to Msg. 408 by "Inviolable."

The Christian religion was quite un-Jewish--especially the drinking of Christ's blood (whether symbolic or miarculous doesn't matter). Baptism as a right of entry into the group was also unknown, yet we see the NT treating it as though it were commonplace--as it was in Hellenistic cults.

I'm not saying it is Jewish, I am saying its origins are from the Jewish religion.
I am saying Jews made it from what they knew or already had.


The thing that makes it seem Jewish is that they took up Messianism, and perforce took up the OT (although in its Greek version). Later, when the Jesus story evolved, he necessarily was put in Palestine.

Greek Version?
You mean the Septaungint?
You do know where it came from?

I think everything about the bible is true...the problem is that we don't understand the message clearly that it sends out.
If we don't understand it, of what use is it?

Saying that Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion is roughly the same as saying that CaoDaism has its roots in Buddhism, or that the American "RamaSutra" people (I forget their name) have their roots in Hinduism.

No, its not. I left a link to the history of Christianity and many Jews converted when Christianity was formed.


There was then, as now, a lot of syncretism all over the place, sometimes resulting in strange mixtures. Then, as time passed, those that persisted would evolve into something more generally palatable.

The earliest Christians (before Paul) seem to have been enamored of Judaism as they understood it (through Hellenistic cultic eyes) and could see the potential of the Messianic prophesies, so they took them up. That does not make Christianity an offshoot of Judaism, but instead a syncretism of Hellenistic religious thinking and certain Jewish ideas.

Please explain why and please try to keep this to one post to make it easier.

The earliest Christians (before Paul) seem to have been enamored of Judaism as they understood it (through Hellenistic cultic eyes) and could see the potential of the Messianic prophesies, so they took them up. That does not make Christianity an offshoot of Judaism, but instead a syncretism of Hellenistic religious thinking and certain Jewish ideas.
Ahh, that was a perfect point. Honestly.... Hellenistic religious thinking in itself was already a syncretism of Classical Greek religion and Middle Eastern religions, and Christianity later took in aspects of many other "pagan" religions which its disciples encountered. You could really say that Christianity is a blend of all the known religions of Europe and the Middle East at that time, which you could take as a good thing or as a bad thing, but there is no denying that it has reached its goal: that is, to have a broad, lasting appeal.

There was then, as now, a lot of syncretism all over the place, sometimes resulting in strange mixtures. Then, as time passed, those that persisted would evolve into something more generally palatable.

The earliest Christians (before Paul) seem to have been enamored of Judaism as they understood it (through Hellenistic cultic eyes) and could see the potential of the Messianic prophesies, so they took them up. That does not make Christianity an offshoot of Judaism, but instead a syncretism of Hellenistic religious thinking and certain Jewish ideas.

OK then, lets say this is correct.
How would this seperate the origins of the Christian religion from the Apostle's?
You have no proof what youre talking about didnt come from them.
Its still a religion all its own, regardless.

OK then, lets say this is correct.
How would this seperate the origins of the Christian religion from the Apostle's?
You have no proof what youre talking about didnt come from them.
Its still a religion all its own, regardless.
Of course it's all its own, and I suppose that the Apostles would be the right word for the people with whom Christianity originated. No one is disputing this.

Of course it's all its own, and I suppose that the Apostles would be the right word for the people with whom Christianity originated. No one is disputing this.


Thats why we're having this conversation, because Thislin said it didnt come from them.

I'm pretty sure that Thislin is not talking about small details like that. He is discussing the fact that he thinks Christianity contains a lot of lies, and also that Christianity is a mixture of many different beliefs and customs in religions, not just Judaism, as you seem to believe.

I'm pretty sure that Thislin is not talking about small details like that. He is discussing the fact that he thinks Christianity contains a lot of lies, and also that Christianity is a mixture of many different beliefs and customs in religions, not just Judaism, as you seem to believe.


Can you explain why a great deal of Christianity takes its teachings from Judaism?

Like what, exactly, Inviolable? Now that I think on it, Judaism and Christianity are very, very different faiths.

Can you explain why a great deal of Christianity takes its teachings from Judaism?
Because Jesus was Jewish? And because it is partly based on Judaism, just like it is partly based upon many other religions?

I guess that's more like how than why...