No, you never stated that it was an actual conversation you shared with your priest 'friend', its phrased in your post as if the incident happened to you. Explain to me how it can be interpreted otherwise. You don't need to find the 'actual' origin of the tale, you need to make the distinction between real and not based on fact clearer to the reader.

I understand what your saying.

For all readers, my priest friend and I never encountered the kitten girl , we discussed her and her kittens to great length but never actually encountered her.

This fact however should not take away from the true essence of the story that I laid out in the form of an analagy, parable based of course on my real experiences.

With all due respect Magikman, I dare ask, do you inform your audience of the origin of all your magic tricks, or is the audience left to assume that they are in fact 'your' tricks, because I can not see how it can be interpretated otherwise.

hehe....I catch your drift Magikman.

Fortunately your name is not Uri Geller, nor do you consort with his crowd. Because that would in fact reflect on your credibility. And it would take nothing more then Johnny Carson as Carnac to expose your fraudulence.

The reason why I used the comparison is because I see little difference between a magician's magic tricks and my posted analagy or parable.

I wasn't trying to use it to force people into believing what I believe. My sole motivation was to expose a common preception in hopes that a christian would come to offer reasons why my parable in their opinion is not true, this would then instigate the proper discussion that is most definetly warranted.

When a magician is on stage preforming for an audience in that audience is children. those children are impressionable and will believe that number one :it is in fact "real" magic and number two it is 'your' magic.

Through the same rationale that caused you to strike my parable down , would in fact also encircle the magic act. Where as after a show you would inform your audience that a] this is not real magic but is created to look like it, b] these tricks were developed by other sources and in fact I learned them and I'm now performing them for you as per someone else's work.

The fact is this confession on the part of the magician would in fact ruin the act, and would also ruin any chance of a repeat performance.

I see my posted analagy as nothing more then telling a joke that starts off by saying "This one time 'I' went to the doctor and ....." or " 'My' wife turns to me in bed and says....." Most people would not bother to quibble about whether or not the joke teller went to the doctor for real or quibble about whether their wife actually did turn to them and say something in bed.

To take it a step further in the context of credibility we would then need every registered user in this forum to use their real names for credibility and accountability. This would be absurd of course and would ruin the forum. But it is a logical outcome if the logic used to question 'my' motives behind 'my' parable were applied.

Based on this I would like to ask you Magikman, all do respect of course, but do you infact believe in God, and is it this belief that motivated your reaction to my parable? The reason why i ask is because Kismit did a very good job of informing me that I stepped out of line and I responded with concurrence. This would then say 'cased closed' especially after I said I would change my approach in light of Kismit's concerns.

You know what I find very interesting? If a Christian had lifted a story off the web and claimed the story to be his/her own, there are sooooooo many people who post on this forum and on this specific topic who would rake said Christian over the coals!!!!! Furthermore, they would probably launch into some crazed tirade about how such an instance is only indicative of how all Christians lie or embellish stories!!! IN FACT, MANY HAVE ALREADY CLAIMED THAT OUR SCRIPTURES ARE FILLED WITH SUCH LIES!!!! Tell me, Chauncey, what does this make you?

Additionally, it's curious that you automatically assumed that Magikman's comments about what you did must be rooted in some form of theism to which he ascribes (like a closed-eyed kitten, no less!!!). How about this: Magikman called you out because he cares about TRUTH, no matter what his theological/philosophical position.

I personally don't care one way or the other if you post things that suggest that Christians and other theists are merely "blind" followers. Much of what is undergirding such an argument is the belief that the only reason any religions got started is to explain natural phenomenon that science later explained. This is a very reductionist approach to the study of religions, no matter which one you're looking at. Even if one doesn't not agree with or believe in a religion, it is patently ridiculous and scholastically irresponsible to claim that events and writings that have religious significance can be dismissed by merely claiming that they are the attempts of uneducated and technologically unadvanced peoples to account for what they could not explain in the natural world. A study of religions doesn't not in any way yield a discovery of a universal, one-to-one correlation between a religiously-significant event or custom and scientific ineptitude. Religions and their formations are a bit more complicated (and interesting) than this. You know, if you spent the time looking at religions that you wish for others to spend opening their blind-kitten-eyes to your so-called truth, I think you might be able to grant many religions and their adherents the respect they deserve (even if you do not believe in them).

First off the Christians with their eyes closed are the ones to which I refer. I know many christians that do not have their eyes closed, nor do they offer God as an answer to everything. nor do they push their mythology on people irrespective of the truth. These Christians and I have no qualms. Also read over all these religious orientated posts , and tell me afterwards if you see Christians lie or embellish. the ones that in fact do lie and embellish are the ones that recieved said coal raking.

The question of Magikman's beliefs were specifically asked for the sole purpose of reviving this thread to it original purpose. I figured Magikman to be objective enough to answer such a question without any emotional hinderance. Where as we could pick up where we left off pre-Christian Kitten analogy.

Actualy if you read over the post we have offered ample reasons for religion's origins, the need to explain natural phenomenon is all but one in a long list of reasons. I myself have never stated this as the sole reason.

Well we are concentrating on a specific religion here that deals with Jesus, the majority of people that have posted on the pro side seem to be all revolving around the same ideals, logic and origins. There fore the discussions/debates have revolved around these views. we could start a World religion thread as not to center anyone out.

I have not seen this to be true as of yet, not when dealing with this SPECIFIC religion. And yes it does ooze scientific ineptitude by far, and should not be used as a weapon against science. I have just as much passion when it comes to defending science as you do for your religion. When false claims are made against science , then yes I will leap into action. In all reality why would anyone want to pit their religion against science, when you do so you are specifically asking for a good coal raking, so how could anyone feel comfortable complaining about the raking they asked for?

I have spent the time looking at other religions, many years worth, hence my views. And no I will never offer respect to something that promotes ignorance, I have made a life decision to battle ignorance. Based on this comment you just made it would be safe to assume that I may in fact have a better understanding of religion then you yourself as a religious person has. I respect the historical aspect of religion for sure, its a part of us as a culture. what I don't respect is the utilization of this historical work as a motivation to say things like "The sun is shrinking", "the earth's magnetic field is depleting", "The end is near", "Your going to hell" , "All scientists are bias", "The devil did it", "Real Men Love Jesus", "Jesus Hates Fags","9/11 is God's wrath for abortion, greed, pornography..etc", "The Earth is only 6000 years old", " You'll have yours on judgement day", "If the Earth is billions of years old, our population would be way higher, indeed to count backwards using this method proves the Earth is 6000 years old"......so on and so on

It is true all things where tied up quite amicably .



And on a General note this thread is a repository for information on Jesus if the next few posts arn't for that specific purpose . I guess that will mean there is no more valuable information to be placed on here .

Actually no one back then or now wants to be called a sinner. No matter what anyone says or thinks, no one wants to be called wrong and that is why most people attack the Bible and God so passionately.

That's because Jesus knew the Bible because He wrote it. Now I know other dudes wrote it but they did it, probably in some kinda tance or something, I dont know. All I know is after the were done writing I am sure theywere trying to figureout what all their writing meant. We still, today, have no lue what soe of it means. Take revelations for example. Isthe harlotte riding the dragons back going to be the catholic church? I mean, who knows?

That's becase it is. Who is man to decide what morality is? Man thinks they can choose who God is, what morality is, and whether or not man is "basically good or evil."

Only the Bible can be trusted, hun. My only reasoning for this is that I believe if God wanted the gnostic gospels in the Bible during the church age (the age we are in now) the I think He would have allowed them to be in there. But since they are not in there I have no reason to believe them at all because if Go wanted me to kn0w them they would be in there for me to know...

I personally don't care if anyone wants to call me a sinner. According to the Bible when I die I'm going straight to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. But that does not keep me up at night anymore because I have come to realize the Bible is not the ultimate truth.

Is that supposed to say trance? You say that Jesus wrote the Bible but you then contradict yourself by saying you know other people wrote it but the were probably in a trance or something. You do not know if they were in a trance you are therefore making assumptions, and we all know what assumptions do. The underlining fact is Jesus did not write the Bible.

Who are you to decide that Christianity is morality?

No the Bible can not be trusted. What makes you think that it has gone throughout the ages unchanged by human hands? God? You tell me that only the Bible can be trusted and you base this assumption only on a belief that you have personally.

I do not understand how in this time people can be so narrowmined as to believe in the Christian view of god but if that works for some people, more power to ya. But do not talk down to me because I look at things differently.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Howdy, Moonbaby!

Good news concerning Mary Magdalene! First, nowhere in the bible does it ever mention that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I'm not sure where this came from, but it is patently untrue. From what we know of her, Mary M. was a follower of Jesus along with the twelve disciples and some other prominent women. I use the term "prominent" because it is rare for any of the gospel writers to mention any Jesus-followers by name outside of the twelve disciples. Luke, though, goes out of his way to mention certain women in ch 8, vv 1-3 of his gospel. According to this, Jesus had cast some demons out of Mary M. Also, Mary, along with Joanna and Susanna, made up some of the financial backbone of Jesus' ministry. Mary M. is also one of the first to see the resurrected Jesus, and one of the first to proclaim it. I won't try to exaggerate the role of women during those times, but it is clear from what we have in the gospels that they did more than one might initially expect.

However, no matter how hard people try to hook Jesus up with someone, there is about as much proof that Jesus had sex with Mary M. as there is that Mary M. was a prostitute. We have no indication that they had sexual relations. We also have no proof that they were married. If they had been, the disciples would have no need to hide this, as most rabbis had (and still do have) wives and families.

I'll get back to ya after I've looked at the link you have provided. Wanna make sure I've got my ducks in a row. Peace to you.

The moral teachings of Jesus....as in ownership by Jesus seems odd to state in such a context. Unless you feel that he in fact cornered the market on such moral standards as in some type of holy copyright. The things that Jesus is alleged to have said and preached are no work of genius. These moral codes of honor amount to common sense. It would seem that while compiling a historical rendition of mankind’s past that these surmount to nothing more then the obvious rules of society. Where as these rules and moral standards are what guarantee a civilization’s survival.

Many, many people live by this code of honor without ever absorbing one word of New Testament scripture. They are attractive to many people because many people already hold these values as truth on their own accord. It’s good to note here as to how I’ve witnessed the organized institutions of Jesus’ word combat this notion of common sense morality. It’s combated by implying that you will go to hell regardless of your good nature and deeds, where as these deeds are worthless if you do not deify Jesus. They imply that no good deed is a good deed unless it is done with the notion of God. If Jesus was here today I’m very sure that he would infact condemn this idea of implied damnation for non-deification. This practice is wrong and it reflects directly on the individual’s that profess this belief.

The reason why this wedge is being driven is because it is absolutely necessary. The driving of the wedge is to separate mythology from fact. Its necessary for our society to stop preaching mythology as scientific truths. Time to stop using mythology to condemn others to hell, we are trying to unite mankind not create more division based on mythological interpretation. If you have to glean the good from scriptures in order to live by that good then so be it, some of us do not need to be told! This wedge will prevent our children from thinking that a man was executed, came back to life, will return one day and all other people that don’t believe what you believe will burn in eternal hellfire, relatives included!

Now here is an example of the implied useless good deed with out deification. Devoid of purpose, are ya silly? The purpose my friend is to uphold a standard of moral aspiration without the threat of damnation or the promise of salvation. The purpose is to maintain a good society and to do it on our own accord. The purpose is our children’s future, the purpose is to set an example for the rest of the world. Anything that is done to protect and better us in this fashion is all the purpose necessary. Believe me everyone if you live a good life and protect your fellow man and uphold a code of honor that reflects this passion then you my friend are full of purpose and prestige, and you are all this without deification!

Actually, the moral teachings of Jesus were not 'common sense' nor were they the societal norm. The fundamental teaching of Jesus was the application of FORGIVENESS which was not in the moral fiber of the Jews during Jesus time nor is it today.

When you boil all the 'Jesus Rhetoric' down, it comes out FORGIVENESS in the bottom of the pan. It really is quite simple. Forgive and be forgiven.

The bottom line today is that we do not need the religiosity of Jesus rhetoric to teach these moral lessons.....forgive and be forgiven?.....forgiven of what?

You should forgive not because Jesus says so, you do so because it is 'your' code.

From what I've seen being a spokesperson for Jesus doesn't mean you are a moral person.Ted Bundy was a christian and professed this before his execution. Yet I do not feel there was moral fiber in his body.

Action not words my friend is the proof of a persons moral standard.

Indeed we repent or forgive because we UNDERSTAND that we did wrong or forgiveness is in order!!

i don't
all we had was, 'hey heres proof!' and then,'well if you take it in its context, you'll see it doesn't really prove much at all'

that said, have both christian and non-christian scholars agreed to it? or are you assuming because noone has kicked up a big fuss about the existence of Jesus? looking at all the sources its quite clear that there's very very little to work with

Hmm. Morality can be relevant when it comes to religion whether we like it or not. I'm an Atheist, or something along those lines anyway. Everyone has different morals, I know plenty of Christians and their ways of living don't differ much from mine in general. I dislike it when people take a clump of people who are one religion and say that they think like this and do these things. Because it's always, always untrue. People are always going to think and do things differently no matter what religion they are.
Great thread

...Okay, so where to start? Whenever the issue of morality and God comes up, there are two outlooks: 1) Morality is practiced on some level by all humans regardless of their acknowledgment of God, so God is not intrinsic in any way to moral living; and 2) Morality is something practiced and cherised by human beings because God has invested some of His moral character into us via creation. Therefore, without God morality is impossible.

There is a middle ground between these two points. But beyond either stance is another issue that neither camp discusses sufficiently.

First, the Judeo-Christian scriptures never posit that human beings are incapable of doing or cherishing goodness and morality without worshipping the God of Israel. Because human beings are all made in God's image, we all operate according to some moral standards of some sort, and at times we commend said morality to others. From the Hebrew bible to the New Testament there is a consistency concerning this. In the Judeo-Christian mindset, morality is impossible without God. However that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not one can be moral without acknowledging said God. The answer is a firm "yes"; humans are moral beings whether they acknowledge God or not.

The issue that neither camp really delves into is this: What are the goals of morality? That's what we're dealing with. If the goals of morality can be encapsulated in our own private actions and our fulfillment of obligatory niceties toward our fellow human beings, then there's no need to talk about anything. In fact, in this model good citizenship in any semi-sane country will get you through. On the other hand, what if the goals of morality are meant to take us to a summit that goes far beyond human capability? I think that the goals of morality are meant to be more radical than our own private worlds. Don't get me wrong: Personal integrity is utterly crucial and indispensible. But morality has got to be more than this.

I think that we can't fulfill the ultimate goals of morality without God. This is where Jesus's life and teachings are unique. Jesus modeled for humankind what it truly is to be human. This included how one is to relate to God. Jesus sought to model how God's ultimate goals for morality, and we needed someone divine to do this for us. When you encounter the Judeo-Chrisitan teaching that there is a "fallenness" about humankind, it is in no way to be taken that human beings are incapable of being moral or doing good things. It means that sin is a part of every good thing that is being done. An analogy: A few years ago I lost a friend to cancer. In the early stages of his ailment his body continued to function normally. However, cancer was a part of every bodily function. Eventually, the cancer set in an overtook him, and his body couldn't function normally at all. Sin is a spiritual parasite feeding on goodness. The presence of some goodness is assumed here.

Jesus's model takes us beyond what fallen humanity can accomplish morally without God. God's purposes for morality go beyond fallen humankind. Our morality is meant to transform others. In an unfallen world, people needed to be formed by the morality of one another, but in a fallen world we must be transformed by the morality of others. And the world is meant to be transformed by this as well. Morality is supposed to be contagious.

In Jesus's mindset, the height of morality for humankind is to love one another as God has loved them and to do to others as we would have them do to us. Let's start with the second part first: To do unto others as we would have them do unto us (gotta luv the King Jimmy here). This requires imagination. What would I have someone do unto me? In what ways should I be loved? That's where the first part of this kicks in: In Jesus's mind we must first accept God's love toward us. Such acceptance means that we'll be transformed by that love. Then we are able to love ourselves. A self-love rooted in God's love of oneself is a deterrent to narcissism because narcissism is a self-love that comes at the expense of others. The self-love rooted in an acceptance of God's love causes one to love others out of an over-flow of love. Love of others is possible because there is so much love between God and the person that it can't be contained or kept private between God and that person: it must be shared. And such love transforms those open themselves up to it. This is God's purpose for morality. This is the uniqueness of Jesus's teachings. What we settle for in the way of morality on a day-to-day basis is merely the launching pad to much more transformative things.

Sorry this is so long.

Quite correct, or as the Apostle Paul put it, "Faith without works is dead."

Wrong in your wording....Don't make the mistake of thinking that the organized churches are 'Christianity'. The organized religions are NOT guided by the principles of Christianity...no matter how 'Christly' they wish to project themselves.
I know of what I speak. The organized religions, i.e. churches, are guided by the collection plate.

If you lump all Christians into the Hypocrisy Box, is it not the same as lumping all those who practice the Islamic Faith into the Terrorist Box?

Just remember this: Christians are guided for the most part by their faith.
Churches are guided for the most part by their collection plates.
One of the reasons Jesus was killed was because he dared point out the hypocrisy of the churches.

I had to reply to this... Of all the sanctimonous claptrap I have heard...

I don't believe in God, nor Jesus or the Bible for that matter.. I think that the Christian church within Most not all of it's incarnations like to herd people like sheep using fear and greed.

I don't care if I'm called wrong for standing up in what I believe in and it ceratinly isn't the above. If I'm classed as a sinner fine, I've heard the place they call hell is pretty good for a party...

Thanks for reading x

You know what, no matter how you word it,no matter how you package,sell,or contrive it, you are still very,very wrong......No wonder you believe all this mythology......its because someone told you you can't be moral without God....they LIED to you!......How do you explain all the moral acts from simple to large that are done in the sake of duty and not to prevent damnation, Ive seen peoploe risk their lives to save animals?

These things are said quite simply, to convince people to join congregations. Plain and simple its done to capitilize on fear....That is morally wrong, if your an advocate of such propaganda then that low level of morality is your essence......but this doesn't mean you can't change your ways.

And what moral fibre of God?....I don't see God having any moral fiber, he's designed by us as the omnipotent boogey man that we must fear in order to appease his violent reactions.....His sacrifice putting his son on the cross?......if he had any moral fiber he would have replaced his son on the cross with that of himself!!!!

If we all maintained this high level of personal integrity then as a race as a whole we are morally sound. Your trying to avoid the point that you think our moral actions should be done with salvation as a goal......thats what your elluding to by saying "has got to be more than this". I think maybe its because you know that people are good and moral without God, but you want to project yourself above your fellow humans by stating that you indeed have a higher moral standard because of you religiosity......do you think this?.....do you think that you are more morally sound then that of non-believers?

or do you mean the writers of the NT 'modeled' this standard? How did he say what it means to be truly human when in fact the very words of the bible say that we as humans are lowly and cannot achieve this standard? Sounds more like the carrot on a fishing pole always out of reach through pure stipulation and fine print.
This quest or high moral ground that you pretend to stand is heart wrenching, as with the reasons why you say it.

Freud said it very nicely ,Freud wrote in The Future of an Illusion that "religion was nothing more than a self-deception in which man engages to deny his own loneliness and fear. God is nothing more than a projection of the infant's loved, feared, all-potent father."

Many a Christian have envisioned themselves coddled in the arms of this imagenary father....does this vision make you feel safe trblvr?
Do you need God to tuck you in at night and lay his hand on you when in despair?

Also this belief you have we can call it oh lets see....maybe....Divine Command Theory of Ethics....seems to be lacking something, it does not tell us what makes something good and does not increase our understanding of the nature of morality. It simply says "do good in the name of God and you get secret surprises when you die, do bad or do good without God and you will get secret surprises when you die in the form of eternal torture'!!!.....ABSURD.

We don't need to believe in the mythology of the Bible , its time to stand on our own, do whats right because we understand whats right. Its also time for us to stop chasing this unattainable carrott, just say "No thank-you , I get my fill from the Earth that I tread and from my fellows at my side"!!!!

Moonbaby,

Howdy. I looked up the sites you provided on the similarities between Jesus and the deities from the mystery cults. I also consulted some stuff I had on file on the subject.

The proposition of those who point out such similarities is that the Christians lifted some aspects of the mystery religions and incorporated them into Christianity. Many who believe this do believe in a historical Jesus, but they think that Christians began to take things that were true of Mithras, Horus, Osiris, and the like and that they attributed them to Jesus long after Jesus had died.

There are many problems with this thesis, though. One of them is that you can tell sometimes that these scholars are trying to conjure up similarities between Jesus and the mystery religion deities where they do not exist. I'll provide a few examples from the sites you provided:

Jesus is recorded throughout the gospels as healing the sick and restoring the dead to life. So was Asclepius, a Greek god man. Pagans and early Christians debated who was the more effective healer.

The quote above is from the "Jesus and Another God-Man" site you provided. The logic kinda goes like this: Jesus is said to have healed. Asclepius, a Greek god-man, is said to have healed. Therefore, the Christians lifted this from the Asclepius story.

Here's another example from the same site: Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and killed.

The logic: In the Mark ch 5 you've got 2,000 pigs into whom Jesus cast a man's demons. The pigs run off a cliff and drown in water. In Eleusis, you've got 2,000 people who bathe in a sea. They seek to transfer their sins into the pigs, and they subsequently chase the pigs off a high place, thusly killing them.

This kind of thinking serves as the foundation of most of the so-called similarities between Jesus and the mystery religion deities. In the first instance, you've got two god-men who heal, so they must be the same, or one must come from another! But this only works when we ignore huge differences between the two. For instance, Asclepius is a mythical figure, while Jesus is very much historical. Even if we could prove that there were two men who believed themselves to have unpredecented relationships with a god, and that both of them healed, it doesn't mean that they necessarily must be one in the same or that one story was lifted from another.

The same is true for the Mark 5 pig story and the Eleusis pig story. Just because there are two stories involving 2,000 of something (pigs vs. people!), something being transferred from a person to pigs, and the death of pigs via falling from a high place doesn't mean that we're dealing with the same story. In the Mark story we're dealing with 2,000 pigs (not people) and Jesus casting a man's demons into them (not sins). The demons (not people) drive the pigs to their deaths.

Another thing to keep in mind is the way in which some scholars intentionally reconstruct mystery cult stories using Christian language.

An example of this occurs with the story of Osiris, in which many see similarities to Jesus's story. Osiris's brother murders him, puts his body in a coffin, and then puts the coffin in the Nile River. Isis, Osiris's wife, gets his body and brings it to Egypt. Osiris's brother gets the body from her and carves it up into 14 pieces, which he scatters all over. After a long search, Isis finds all of the pieces of Osiris's body. Osiris, somehow, comes back to life after all this.

When certain scholars re-tell this story it goes something like this: Osiris, the savior-god, is killed by someone close to him (=Jesus is a savior-god, betrayed by someone close, killed); Osiris's body is immersed in some water (=Jesus's baptism); Osiris is somehow resurrected (=Jesus's resurrection).
But this is deceptive. First, Osiris was not a savior deity in any way, nor did his death have any saving significance. Second, outside of the fact that his body got wet, Osiris's burial at sea by his brother was in no way like Jewish or Christian baptism (mikvah for Jews). Lastly, Osiris's resuscitation can't be compared with Jesus's resurrection because none of the mystery religions believed in the Judeo-Christian concept of resurrection. Not only that, but the original Osiran myth is not clear on what in the world happened to him anyway. Also, Osiris's coming back from the dead is never said to have any saving significance.

Also, when we begin to delve into where the Christians got their stuff, we have no further to look than Judaism. Baptism corresponds to a pre-existing Jewish purification rite of immersing in water. Communion corresponds to the Jewish passover ritual. Jesus's language about being the "Good Shepherd" in John ch 10 is borrowed directly from Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23. Jesus's language about being the "Light of the world" in John ch 8, v 12 is imagery borrowed directly from Jewish metaphors for the guidance and judgment of God (like in Psalm 27 v 1, and the light images of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Jesus and the early Christians had no need to turn to the mystery religions for imagery and metaphor and ritual; they had their Jewish heritage to go to. And said Jewish heritage pre-dated much (though not all) of the mystery religion material.

I'll get back to you about the Horus stuff. Take care!

Chauncy,

I did not grow up a Christian. I converted to faith in Christ from another faith. Actually(and this might irk you more than anything I've said), I became a believer because of a miraculous experience with Jesus Christ in which I came into contact with his love. Why do you believe that you can derive my life story and all of my reasons for belief from one posting?

Very little of what you have written is in response to what I actually wrote. I encourage you to go back and check out what I wrote down. Also, I encourage others to compare what Chauncy has written in reply to me with what I wrote. This is not necessarily about who's right or wrong at this juncture. We're just dealing with an issue of clarity.

Please go back and read what I actually posted. Don't hear what I did not say.

So much for civility, eh? God bless you, Chauncy.

There were question marks at the end of those sentences, why not answer them.

Yes I did read what you wrote....your simply dressing up your original statements.

You claim that there is good in man, but this is a result of God, you say man will do good but is nothing without God......this is wrong!

What you asked is pretty personal, and I don't want to clog up the thread with a bunch of personal testimony stuff b/c that would defeat the purposes of the thread. If personal stuff is what you're wanting know, then you can write me at

christ_craft@bellsouth.net

Blessings to you and your household.

Claptrap? Oh yeah? Well... uhm... I think your claptrap!

Hmmm, well first of all, being a christian I have nothing ot fear. The Bible (God) says I have nothing to fear. Second of all this "church" you're talking about sounds like the roman catholic church. The christian church only referrs to the collective of christians. You all have such warped definitions of church and prayer and sin.

That's not the wisest thing I have ever heard to say the least. If you go to hell then there won't be much partying.

Well you should try being persecuted as the heathan christian.

You (purposely or not purposely) misunderstand what he means.

Trublvr, what kind of experiance did you have with Jesus Christ?

1) Why don't you enlighten us as to the correct definition.

2) Maybe if you didn't come across as being a self righteous fascist you wouldn't be persecuted as "the heathen christian".

Chauncy- I'm reading that site you gave. Do you know how reliable this information is?

Both are reliable. the first is just listing scriptures, the second is stating the similarities as they exist, the conclusion you must draw on your own.

All the scriptures listed exist, as with the egyptian counterparts, or predessors I should say.

Jesus's life and teachings were not unique. click

Does that mean that there are a bunch of "born again Egyptians" running around now?

There are many parallels between the bible and other ancient stories of older mythologies, the big flood and Jesus being just two prominent parallels.

I would also recommend reading up on the Apocrypha, the books that were not put into the canonized bible. Constantine(and the 4th century coucel of Nicea) did some pretty interesting editing in my opinion. I definately have a different opinion of what Jesus was and did after reading information that was outside of what the church put their stamp on.

The book of Jasher is an excluded book.
http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html

As with the book of Enoch.
http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html

"Apocrypha means 'hidden things' in Greek. The Apocryphical books of the Bible fall into two categories: texts which were included in some canonical version of the Bible at some point, and other texts of a Biblical nature which have never been canonical. " http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/

Celti,

I am a Christian and I concur with what you stated in the above. The problem with the churches has always been one of power and money. It has always been a problem with me that in the old testament there is an entire litany of Law handed down to the Jews by God. Among them is : give one tenth of all your cattle Etc, to God. How completely hypocritical of the churches to choose which laws of God they will obey. "Oh, God doesn't care if we eat pigs...that was the old testament....but you better give 10 percent of your salary to First Baptist..."

I have said before and will say again...If you took Jesus out of the church...people would still keep on attending....but if you take the money out of the church it will fall flat on its face.

And lastly, Jesus has nothing to do with the churches of today. As a matter of fact in Revelations, he admonishes the churches.

And finally....again...Jesus was about forgiveness...nothing else. A concept that was lost on the Jews and is still lost on the Jews.

ANd again lastly and finally, consider this: If the Jews practiced the teachings of Jesus today and turned the other cheek and gave to whoever whatever was asked of them....would they be in conflict with the Palestinians?

Why can't you just comment on the point?

The Jews teach forgiveness, maybe not the way you'd like but they most certainly do they call it Mechila.

Mishne Torah, "Hilchot Chovel u-Mazzik," 5:10). Mechila is, thus, an expectation of the offended person but only if the sinner is actually repentant. For example, a woman who has been battered by her husband, or abused by her father, is not obliged to grant such a person mechila unless he has, first, desisted from all abusive activity; second, reformed his character through analysis of sin, remorse, restitution, and confession; and third, actually asked for forgiveness several times. Only then, after ascertaining that he is sincere in his repentance, would a woman in such a situation be morally bound, though not legally obligated, to offer the offender mechila.

I looked up the site to which you made reference, Chauncy. I'm not following how these similarities make the biblical writers plagarists. For example, the creators of the first site make this comparison between a psalm and an excerpt from Amenhotep IV:


"How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures."
- Psalm 104:24


"How manifold are thy works!
They are hidden before men
Oh sole God, beside whom
there is no other.
Thou didst create earth
according to thy heart."
-Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton) from Rosicrucian Question and Answers, p. 55

This is such a general praise to a deity, that you can probably find something like this in any text in which a god is praised. Despite the obvious similarities, these texts differ in that in the psalm God is praised for His creation of the creatures in the earth, as well as being praised for His works in general (which the Egyptian passage also mentions). Also, Amenhotep writes of the hiddenness of God's works before humans, whereas the psalmist does not. Now, to be fair, there are mentions in the psalms and in the biblical wisdom literature of the hiddenness of God's order and work before humankind, but such an idea is not present in the quoted passage. If the comparison of these two passages is meant to bolster the idea that one writer lifted something from another, then the attempt to prove this has not measured up to the task.

Another comparison from this site is between the 10 Commandments and some writings from the Egyptian Book of the Dead:


"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain....Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery...Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor..."
- Exodus 20: 7-16

'Not have I despised god...Not have I killed...Not have I fornicated...Not have I despoiled the thing of the god...not have I defiled the wife of a man...Not have I cursed god...Not have I borne false witness'.
- Egyptian Book of the Dead

First, comparing these two texts for the sake of demonstrating plagarism assumes that the uniqueness of the 10 Commandments rests solely in their content. It is interesting, though, that the creators of the web site left out the fact that only five of the ten commandments are held in common by the Decalogue and the Book of the Dead.

The uniqueness of the 10 Commandments is not only that there are 10 rules that every Israelite must live by. Many other cultures have some or all of the 10 commands stated in some way or another. To get a full grasp, though, on the uniqueness of God's commands in the eyes of Israel, we have to look elsewhere:

1) That God in space, time, and history communicated these commands to Israel. In the milieu in which Israel was formed, there was little to no stress place upon the work of god(s) in space, time, and history. What Israel was attempting to do was to purposefully locate the activity of the God of Israel in space, time, and history to distinguish their God from all others in their semitic milieu. Whether or not we think that they accurately did this is a horse of a different color, but that is at what they were attempting to do. So if one wants to wrap one's mind around why Israel believed itself unique, you can't just stop at Israel's adherence to 10 (or 5, if we follow this site) rules.

2) Israel's Sinai experience with Yahweh is central to understanding the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments are a part of a covenant that Yahweh is forging with Israel. If you read Exodus 19 - 20, you come to see that God is entering into relationship with Israel. In fact, the whole Sinai event is patterned after Semitic wedding practices, which accentuates the covenantal significance of the Sinai experience. God is pretty much saying, "If you guys are gonna be my people, then here's how you have to act!" The 10 Commandments are the equivalent of Israel's wedding vows. That makes them more than just 10 suggestions for personal morality.

3) The Exodus & the calling and vocation of Israel as the Abrahamic seed are also in sight when God gives the 10 Commands. God frees Israel in the Exodus for the purpose of mediating His purposes to the whole world. The 10 Commands are a part of Israel's vocation, not merely a set of do's and don'ts. In performing the 10 Commands, Israel corporately images out God to the rest of the world. This does not make Israel better than any nation (God states this repeatedly); however, this does make Israel unique.

In light of all this, five of the ten commandments are only similar to the Egyptian writings only when we divorce them from 1) God's actions in history, 2) Israel's covenantal relationship with Yahweh, and 3) Israel's vocation in the earth.

This is true of most attempts to compare the biblical writings with those of other religions. These so-called similarities are usually based on divorcing biblical rites & rituals, regualtions & commandments, and symbols & metaphors from their unique purposes. So if we find some ancient religion where people worshipped spacemen from a Jovian moon, and if we find that they worshipped said spacemen by sacrificing a lamb to them, well then that alone proves that the Jews stole/plagarized the whole Passover ritual from these people. Such a correlation only works if we fail to ask what the significance of said rituals had for each group of people. Also, what so many fail to realize is that even if you could prove the existence and historicity of either or both groups, you still have not proven that one group stole or plagarized from the other.

I a sorry for commenting on something I misunderstood, then. I thought he was saying the church uses the bible to control people by fear. In which I believe that is what happened in the roman catholic church way back when (during the crusades and what-not). I have nothing to be afraid of.

Church- The church I go to is simply an establishment of people who want to get together and learn from the Bible. I don't know about any of this conspiracy talk within the church. Again, that happens more within the roman catholc churches of the medieval times. Just because you go to church doesn't mean you have to pay up all your money. It doesn't mean you have to do anything you don't want to! It's just a place where people talk and learn more about God through His word (the Bible).
Prayer- I have heard many anti-God arguments about prayer. Prayer is simply the formal way of communicating with God. God always answers prayers. No matter if you are christian or not. If you pray to God asking Him to save your dying uncle in the hospital and your uncle dyes, that doens't mean God didn't answer your prayer. Granted, God does know what your will pray for before you evenprayer, again it's just the formal way to go to God.
Sin- Sin can be so simply defined: going against God, or what He has told you t do or not do. Let me be the first to say that I sin so much, daily. I am no perfect man. We all have sinned against God. God cannot sin, owever. How can God go against His own will? He might bring a flood that in turn brings a massive genocide but God has every right to. He didn't go against His will... it was His will for them to die because they sinned against Him so fervently. I can immagine that they would sin against Him in a complete frenzy (but that is my own speculation).
If you want me to define anything else please ask. And again, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Oh, and I get all my definitions from a dispensational view of the Bible. I get no other information anywhere else.

I am so sorry for acting that way. Sometimes I have a problem with being humble. I am sure I will answer to God for that.

Just know that the God deemed it OK to eat pigs. There were many laws He made for that time. You don't see anyone applying sheeps blood to their doors for passover. Look at the bible dispensationally.

Jesus out of the church? It might keep going. God labeled all the kinds of churches in Revelations. If on were to take the money fro a church, God would help that church find a way... that is IF He wanted that church there at that tie.

True, the Palestinians were in that land first, but God gave the land to Jews. If the palestinians want to make something of it, they should take it up with God. You sound as if you dislike the Jews some. Just know God blesses those who bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews.

Again, for all of my arguments I use the Bible. Everything extra-biblical is looked upon skepically by me. (Just so everyone looking at me and thinking, "whatta moron!" can know my thought process).

Awww, that sounds very nice joc. but wait:

Hmmm, I am getting mixed message here, It appears to me that even with the love of jesus it just doesn't help much in the forgiveness department...

No wonder we aren't able to get anywhere with this discussion.