Do Atheists die more difficult than Believers

[+DieChecker]

But isn't Jesus supposed to be God? The Flood alone is an account of Jesus personally murdering millions of people, including children and babies: not to mention the plagues on Egypt. Of course neither of those events ever actually happened, but in the context of the narrative of the Bible, Jesus is clearly culpable of mass genocide of infants.

If Christians just read the Old Testament and followed that they would be called Jews.

They are called Christians because they follow the teachings of Jesus when he came to Earth. He wasn't just here to teach however. He died carrying the sins and hurts of the world, so that everyone that came after, that believed in his sacrifice, would not have to sacrifice any longer, but would only have to ask to be forgiven, and they would. Being a Christian is following a way of life that started with Jesus, not Moses, or Solomon, or Abraham. Those people are just part of the prologue. Which sets the stage to understand what Jesus taught and what he did. We are not required to Follow the Old Testament. And that some Christians do is of their own doing, not of Jesus's doing. Jesus broke the relgious laws and Fulfilled them, so that they need no longer be followed. Just as he died as a sacrifice, so that we need not sacrifice, he fulfilled the dietary and cleanliness laws (The Laws of Moses) so they need not be followed any longer. Again... Those Christians who follow OT law do so out of ignorance.

They say God is the same as he has ever been, today, yesterday and tomorrow. But in the OT he wiped out entire peoples, like you said. God hasn't changed, but he has changed how he reveals what he wants for us over time. When we were moral infants, he treated us like infants. As we matured as moral beings, he treated us as more moral beings. I think this argument makes a lot of sense and fits into how Judaism and Christianity have slowly changed over time.

God still has the ability to wipe out entire nations, and occasionally he does. But more commonly, it is the work of the Enemy that causes such pain and suffering. And if you ask me why the Enemy has such power, I really couldn't tell you, except that We, the humans of Earth, gave that dominion, and power over to him. We had dominion once, and now the Enemy holds most of the power here on Earth. Just look around at all the negative in the world. God didn't cause that, humans did. Humans are nasty things in general.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DieChecker

[Tiggs]

Again... Those Christians who follow OT law do so out of ignorance.

Or maybe it's because they've carefully read the words of Jesus, as recorded by Matthew 5:17-20.

Especially the bit about Heaven and Earth passing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

One of the things I like about Buddhism is that it brings us to mindfulness. Buddhist teaching instructs you to meditate on your own impermanence and the fact that you are going to die.

I think this is a teaching we should all learn to follow, whether you're a Christian like myself; whether you're a theist or an atheist, a believer or a skeptic.

We have to prepare ourselves for the eventual; and I think this is why anyone, theist or atheist can have a "bad" death in which we're horrified, enraged, in despair etc. because we have a tendency to avoid thinking about death. We can't "accept" death because we never thought so much about it. The existentialist Christian theologian Paul Tillich once argued that it is normal for us to think about death as long as it is the death "of the other", as in I can think about SOMEONE ELSE dying...but not myself. Again, this idea applies to anyone.

So simply put: to die a "good" death I think we have to prepare ourselves for it, regardless of what you believe or don't believe. We have to learn to accept our own death...while we are still living.

Don't let death catch you unawares.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[+DieChecker]

Or maybe it's because they've carefully read the words of Jesus, as recorded by Matthew 5:17-20.

Especially the bit about Heaven and Earth passing.

Mathew 5

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

I notice that it does not say, "those who break the law go to Hell". It says they will be the Least in Heaven.

Anyway, here is how I read that scripture.

17. Jesus comes to fulfill the Law and the Prophets

18. Not one jot of Law will pass away till the Law is fulfilled. (See fulfilled in 17 above)

19. Those who break the Law before it is fulfilled will be least in Heaven. (See fulfilled in 17 above)

20. Righteousness must exceed the Pharisees to get to Heaven. (Pharisees being the Teachers of the Law)

So, the Law passes away with the fulfillment of Jesus on the Cross, and with that knowledge the righteousness of the followers of Christ exceeds that of any Pharisee.

The Laws of Moses need not be followed any more.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DieChecker

[Tiggs]

Anyway, here is how I read that scripture.

17. Jesus comes to fulfill the Law and the Prophets

18. Not one jot of Law will pass away till the Law is fulfilled. (See fulfilled in 17 above)

19. Those who break the Law before it is fulfilled will be least in Heaven. (See fulfilled in 17 above)

20. Righteousness must exceed the Pharisees to get to Heaven. (Pharisees being the Teachers of the Law)

So, the Law passes away with the fulfillment of Jesus on the Cross, and with that knowledge the righteousness of the followers of Christ exceeds that of any Pharisee.

The Laws of Moses need not be followed any more.

You're really skipping that whole heaven and earth passing away thing and hoping no-one notices, aren't you?

The Law of Moses needs to be followed unto the end of the Earth. At which point - everything that Jesus has to do will be fulfilled.

You'll note there's a bit of a triumphal return, etc, to get through, before he exits, stage right.

[+DieChecker]

"Till heaven and earth pass away" is not literal.

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Meaning... Even unto the end of everything, nothing will change, until the Christ fulfills his purpose on Earth.

Christ fulfilled his purpose on Earth when he died. Thus fulfilling the Law. If for some reason Jesus had not died. Had been more man then god, run off with a woman to Greece... then the Law wouldn't have been fulfilled and we'd still all be Jews living under Moses Laws.

The simple fact is that Jesus could Not have said this the way you imply, because he broke many of the Jewish laws. And did so in front of crowds and Pharisees. He healed on the Sabboth, against the ruling of the Pharisees. And he ate sacrificed food. Which was totally against the Law. Plus other examples, if you require them.

So did Jesus mean that he came to fulfill the law and thus nullify it? Or, did he say the Law couldn't be changed and then went ahead and broke it himself many times?

Edited September 4, 2014 by DieChecker

[Likely Guy]

...So simply put: to die a "good" death I think we have to prepare ourselves for it, regardless of what you believe or don't believe. We have to learn to accept our own death...while we are still living.

Don't let death catch you unawares.

That's a great phrase. Something we can all live (and die) by because death can be a sneaky bugger.

[Guest]

I think you are totally and completely incorrect. Moderate Christians do take more of an academic approach. They still have a proclamation of faith no doubt. Something that atheists cannot agree with of course. But labeling the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible as the true and best representation of Christianity is simply wrong born of a lack of education of what is actually taught. I have been through the inquiry phase of Catholicism. Catholicism has not evolved to distance themselves from fundamentalists. Quite the contrary. They have highly intelligent scholars working tirelessly on the best possible understanding and inturpretation of what the bible really is. It wasnt always that way of course the religion has made its rounds. Of course the underlying faith that it is "inspired" work is still there, but if you actually sit down with a teacher you will discover that the modern understanding of context, the human element, perspective, and litoral not literal understanding is all applied.

Some parts are ment to be literal story telling from the PERSPECTIVE or even inturpretation of a previous source. Educated Christians understand this. Some parts are completely allegorical because the are passed down from the prose of traditional allegorical story telling. Much like a Native American elder telling a fantastic story over a fire to teach a lesson. It still happens in modern story telling. The Christians that I am close with know this, but it seems that atheists do not. They claim logical high ground but love the straw man. They make the same exact mistake as the uneducated fundamentalist does. How funny. It makes me chuckle every time I think about it.

How can the "book" of the bible have both literal elements and littoral elements. It's because it's .... Are you ready.... An ANTHOLOGY. It's a collection of different stories some separated by thousands of years.

If you have this discussion with a true Christian scholar, she/he will chew you up and spit out your straw man side ways.

The bible being an ANTHOLOGY, is not ment to be read from front to back. You can attack their faith in what they claim to be divinely INSPIRED all you want and has merit heck even the illogic of fundamentalist inturpretation and even some of the magical stuff that is ment to be litteral is fair game, but it looks foolish for an atheist to not have the slightest clue what this large body of Christians even believe about the bible and continue to bring up the ever present uneducated bible bashing. And I'm not a Christian

Again you are making assertions which you claim to be self evidently true - when in fact they are merely your personal opinion.

There is no single interpretation of the Bible and the fundamentalist has as much right to claim truth as any moderate christian. For me that discredits the element of "truth" in all interpretations of the book.

Br Cornelius

[White Crane Feather]

It is your opinion that fundamentalists are uneducated, and you just gloss over the most important component of why the Bible gets picked on and Aesop does not: the Bible is claimed to be divinely inspired, the Word of God, 'all scripture is god-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness'.

There's a lot of Christian scholars with lots of different opinions. Will your hypothetical Christian scholar be chewing up the supposed strawman with actual evidence and stuff? They'll be able to tell us (finally) what the Bible really was meant to convey, without access to or even identification of the majority of its authors?

Speaking of strawmen, I don't know anyone who doesn't know it's an anthology; pretty obvious since the 4 gospels all cover roughly the same time period. Is what the bible 'means' determined by by what the large body of Christians believe today, or in the past, and how do you know? I think that was one of Cornelius' points. Also, you used 'littoral/litoral' twice and the former seems to mean 'related to a shore of a sea or lake'; did you mean 'liturgical'?

Yes sorry I did.

I don't think lots of scholars, at least the ones i have met or aware of through reading or discussion will disagree much on what is ment originally to be allagorical or not. It's not that difficult. Notice I said ment to be. I mentioned that their claim of divine inspiration is quite open for debate. I specifically mentioned it and that its an article of faith because I was not glossing over it. It's a lost debate for me because I think all story's expressing virtue allegorically and as a lesson is divinely inspired no more or less than the bible. But im not talking about me.

What it means and what the story's are from a liturgical ( ) perspective are completely two different things. And yes fundamentalists and atheists that do not know or will not accept what actual people that study WHAT the bible story's are indeed are practicing the same flawed thinking as those who refuse natural selection. There is a large body of knowledge as to catagorization of what different kinds of literature actually are. Especially when it's origins are pretty much known to come from oral tradition and we have a lot of study and even anthropological knowledge of how oral tradition works and its actual function.

For example: To the fundamentalist Abraham's binding of Isac and subsequent attempt at sacrifice was a literal command from god to sacrifice his son. To the atheist makeing the same exact mistake it's a moral outrage. Even the all knowing biologist Dawkin has written

"A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. By the standards of modern morality, this disgraceful story is an example simultaneously of child abuse, bullying in two asymmetrical power relationships, and the first recorded use of the Nuremberg defence: ' I was only obeying orders ' Yet the legend is one of the great foundational myths of all three monotheistic religions."

Demonstrating his complete ignorance to the different rich alogorical interpretations, study of origins, and potential meanings. Ironically, He takes the same stance as the fundamentalist and cast a judgment on all abrahamic faiths even though Catholicism and quit a few others in fact recognize that it's allagorical story about faith. But not taking orders. Abraham already demonstrated that he would challenge god on moral issues when he was told god would destroy Sodom and Gomorra. The story by many is seen as a lesson that gods plan is the right one and that in the end no matter what, things will turn out alright. Indeed it did. A sort of "Jesus take the wheel moment". With this attitude being a blessing to all that come after him.

Now again, so you don't say im glossing over it what faith is and it's merits is quite debatable, but a lovening trust in god is the meaning for many, and is of course one of many interpretations, but that dosnt change the fact that it was and is never ment to be literal, that Dawkins dosnt have a clue what he is talking about nor do literalists, and that the story is an allegorical lesson. Dawkin uses the standard straw man of holding ( alongside fundamentalists) up the literal story as representative of what was intended, while not even a secular scholar would ever agree that the story was ment to be literal. In fact it fits well with what we know about oral traditions and how lessons are passed down through history.

This same old story of atheists interpreting the bible literally and holding literal inturpretation up as the the straw man to be burned for all Christians is played out day in day out on these very forums. The irony is remarkable because the guilty parties are clueless to their own ignorance and lack of logic. Yes that includes a lot of Christians aswell, but those actually educated about their religion know better.

I guess if the atheist dosnt know any better then its more of an ignorance based straw man. I had a debate about once aswell. If you are ignorant about something can your ignorance that misrepresents people be considered a straw man? Not after you have been educated about it right?

Edited September 4, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Guest]

The OT Bible is predominantly a piece of self propaganda to justify the historic "special" nature of the Jewish race. Almost all elements designed to achieve this can be shown to be historically inaccurate - often to a gross degree. Beyond that it is a set of rules designed to maintain societal order and social continuity. As such you can choose to believe that God intended that the Jews were somehow unique and that he as an elevated thunder god is indeed somehow unique - but any real scholarly analysis will tell you it is simply a historical document of a particular culture who won their lands by conquest and genocide. It is the story they tell themselves to make themselves feel special. Is that what the Christian scholars take from the OT Bible, if not then I think they are severely in error.

As for the NT, as i said previously this is a manufactured text created by the Paulian Bishops to justify their new religion for the Roman Empire. It was manufactured and manipulated to serve this central purpose. As for what Jesus actually said and meant - well your guess is as good as mine at this stage.

How anyone see this as been divinely inspired is well beyond my simple understanding. Is there essential truth hidden in all of this - maybe. However it seems to be lost in all of the hate fags/stone adulterers bull**** that it clearly contains and was gospel truth until about 20 years ago.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 4, 2014 by Guest

[+Link of Hyrule]

"Till heaven and earth pass away" is not literal.

Meaning... Even unto the end of everything, nothing will change, until the Christ fulfills his purpose on Earth.

Christ fulfilled his purpose on Earth when he died. Thus fulfilling the Law. If for some reason Jesus had not died. Had been more man then god, run off with a woman to Greece... then the Law wouldn't have been fulfilled and we'd still all be Jews living under Moses Laws.

The simple fact is that Jesus could Not have said this the way you imply, because he broke many of the Jewish laws. And did so in front of crowds and Pharisees. He healed on the Sabboth, against the ruling of the Pharisees. And he ate sacrificed food. Which was totally against the Law. Plus other examples, if you require them.

So did Jesus mean that he came to fulfill the law and thus nullify it? Or, did he say the Law couldn't be changed and then went ahead and broke it himself many times?

I have a different view, that the Law does still exist, and that we as Christians should follow it. But HOW do we follow it? Immediately after saying that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfil it, he then goes on for quite some time talking about the Law. He uses a pattern of "you have heard it said *insert Law here*... but I tell you *insert new stuff here*". He's just said that not a jot or tittle will be removed but he then changes it about. I argue that this is Jesus "fulfilling the Law". He is offering a newer spiritual meaning for the physical laws.

To use an example that Jesus used, he said "you have heard it was said, 'do not commit adultery', but I tell you that whoever looks at a woman with lustful intentions has already committed adultery in his heart". Jesus is essentially arguing that keeping the letter of the law is not all there is, we have to keep the spirit of the law. The physical laws such as adultery are meaningless if you are still thinking about lusting after a woman (that is why Christians are against pornography). That's just one law Jesus refers to, he addresses many others, both explicitly and indirectly.

So when it comes to the Law, we Christians must uphold it. It is still very much relevant in a Christian's life. But it's not applied the same way as it was in the Old Testament, and certainly it was not how the Pharisees were doing it, They not only upheld the very strict letter of the law, but they added their own extra set of laws to strictly follow, to ensure that they wouldn't even accidentally break the letter of the actual Law, all the while not realising the letter of the Law is meaningless if it's not backed up with the right spiritual mentality.

[White Crane Feather]

Again you are making assertions which you claim to be self evidently true - when in fact they are merely your personal opinion.

There is no single interpretation of the Bible and the fundamentalist has as much right to claim truth as any moderate christian. For me that discredits the element of "truth" in all interpretations of the book.

Br Cornelius

No they don't. You are not listening. I'm not talking about interpretation I'm talking about categorization of literature.

They don't have any more right to it than they do creationism over natural selection.

The literal interpretation of something that is clearly allegorical is about the only wrong interpretation there can be. It's not my opinion that many of the story's of the bible are meant to be allegorical, it's the consensus of people that actually make it their science to study, classify, and categorize ancient literature. You can look it up for yourself. See my response to LG.

[+Link of Hyrule]

As for the NT, as i said previously this is a manufactured text created by the Paulian Bishops to justify their new religion for the Roman Empire. It was manufactured and manipulated to serve this central purpose.

This is demonstrably untrue. While it was a Roman Emperor (Constantine) who convened the Council that canonised the New Testament, that is where it's influence ended. The council was not there to "justify their new religion for the Roman Empire", but simply to make Christianity a "legal religion" in the Roman Empire. It was the next Emperor who took over after Constantine died who made it the official State Religion. And while it's true that Paul was a central figure in early Christianity, it's equally inaccurate to make the claim that it's "Paulist doctrine" when the writings of bishops through the 2nd and 3rd Centuries demonstrate otherwise (the canonical gospels can, from memory, be virtually entirely reconstructed simply from quotes of early Church Fathers). And while not all early church fathers agreed with each other on everything, that was the purpose of Nicaea, to unify Christianity under one set of beliefs. Reading more into it than that is not historical, and inaccurate.

[Guest]

No they don't. You are not listening. I'm not talking about interpretation I'm talking about categorization of literature.

They don't have any more right to it than they do creationism over natural selection.

The literal interpretation of something that is clearly allegorical is about the only wrong interpretation there can be. It's not my opinion that many of the story's of the bible are meant to be allegorical, it's the consensus of people that actually make it their science to study, classify, and categorize ancient literature. You can look it up for yourself. See my response to LG.

As has been pointed out - for most of the history of the Bible it was taken as history with allegorical meaning layered over it. It is only modern day revisionism which denies this - and is exactly what you are attempting to do.

Frankly the Bible is a mess and itsw impossible to say that the modern interpretation we "enlightened" people of the 21th century make of it is any more accurate than the interpretation of a 3rd century cleric (with its literal age of the earth of a few thousand years) made of it - to think otherwise seems self delusional.

Br Cornelius

[Tiggs]

"Till heaven and earth pass away" is not literal.

In your opinion.

In my opinion - when Christ says "till heaven and earth pass away" - that's exactly what he means.

After all - is there not to be a new heaven and a new earth?

2 Peter 3:10-13

But the day of the lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with a fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells

How can everything possibly be fulfilled prior to the Day of the Lord's coming?

The simple fact is that Jesus could Not have said this the way you imply, because he broke many of the Jewish laws. And did so in front of crowds and Pharisees. He healed on the Sabboth, against the ruling of the Pharisees. And he ate sacrificed food. Which was totally against the Law. Plus other examples, if you require them.

Again. In your opinion.

In several other opinions, Jesus didn't actually break any of God's law.

See here, for example: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.php

Or here: http://www.new-life.net/faqs/biblical-questions/jesus-seems-to-keep-violating-the-jewish-laws-regarding-the-sabbath-why-did-he-do-that/

If you believe otherwise, then the real question you need to ask yourself, is why would Jesus deliberately break his father's own laws?

If you don't have an answer - then that's probably all you need to know, right there.

[Guest]

This is demonstrably untrue. While it was a Roman Emperor (Constantine) who convened the Council that canonised the New Testament, that is where it's influence ended. The council was not there to "justify their new religion for the Roman Empire", but simply to make Christianity a "legal religion" in the Roman Empire. It was the next Emperor who took over after Constantine died who made it the official State Religion. And while it's true that Paul was a central figure in early Christianity, it's equally inaccurate to make the claim that it's "Paulist doctrine" when the writings of bishops through the 2nd and 3rd Centuries demonstrate otherwise (the canonical gospels can, from memory, be virtually entirely reconstructed simply from quotes of early Church Fathers). And while not all early church fathers agreed with each other on everything, that was the purpose of Nicaea, to unify Christianity under one set of beliefs. Reading more into it than that is not historical, and inaccurate.

The council of Nicacea was the point when the Church created by Paul stamped the Catholic church with a definition of what was officially Christianity. This was one of the final acts of a long process of creating the Paulian Catholic Church of Empire. This was when many of the ideas which had been common currency for centuries were declared heretical and banished. This is when many of the Gospels in circulation were officially banished to serve the cause of creating a pure doctrine amenable to expansion throughout the known world.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 4, 2014 by Guest

[Alan McDougall]

What a heartless thing to say about someone. How do you know she held on too long or when it was her time to die. Here is the thing, some illnesses like cancer we don't have that much control over how they progress sometimes. It is not like she could be put out of her suffering like the family dog, we don't do that. Sorry her illness and death was inconvenient for her family. You really need to pray to your God for some humility.

My father was a life long atheist and a WWII vet, I ask him if he had prayed when he thought he was going to die in the fox hole and was thinking they were going to be over run. He said "Hell no, I was to busy fighting to stay alive." He was wounded in the battle, but he kept fighting and they were able to turn the battle. I am proud to say my father was the atheist in the fox hole.

If some puts a gun to my head I am going to fight or be thinking about how to get out of the situation. I have had a gun pointed at me and tossed my wallet, he turned to pick it up and I booked. Glad it was when I was younger and could still run. Now I would have to hand over the wallet, hope he is happy or maybe fight if I have to. What would you do, just give up and die.

I am amazed at the lengths Christians and Muslims will do to get converts. Y'all will down right lie just to say you are right and everyone else is wrong. Some will even kill. To you really think this is pleasing to your God.

I am a Pagan Druid, so I actually believe the Universe kind of recycles and our loved ones return to become someone or thing else. Is it logical or can I prove it, no, I just formulated from my own experiences. Pagans don't seek converts, we don't have to, people come to us when they are ready, no tricks, no lies. People who don't what to be on the Earth path, fine, we don't care. We just figure you'll come to it when you are ready, if not this life, then the next. Each to their own path. Usually when people come to the path they have actually been doing it along time and just didn't know what it was.

As above, so below.

As a Pagan Druid you are as religious as the rest of us and just as frightened of the thought of ceasing to exist after death as everyone else. Your statement earlier that you have absolutely no fear of death, is absolute nonsense!

[Guest]

As a Pagan Druid you are as religious as the rest of us and just as frightened of the thought of ceasing to exist after death as everyone else. Your statement earlier that you have absolutely no fear of death, is absolute nonsense!

You know nothing about Paganism do you ?

Br Cornelius

[Alan McDougall]

You know nothing about Paganism do you ?

Br Cornelius

Yes I do!! it is a religion just like any other religion, it can be based of a personal understanding of the divine or a group understanding, it is not dogmatic or exclusive.

However, just like the "Religion of New Atheism it is a religion, based of some sort of faith.

Pagans may be trained in particular traditions or they may follow their own inspiration. Paganism is not dogmatic. Pagans pursue their own vision of the Divine as a direct and personal experience.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[Alan McDougall]

As an atheist, I have to say that I do think it is true. Especially for those who had a bad life. It gives them hope on their deathbed that they are going to something better, whereas atheists tend to despair at opportunity lost.

That being said, I am not going to try and delude myself for a happier death but rather focus on making my life have value.

An honest answer, because we all fear the "cessation of our existence" after death!

[Guest]

Yes I do!! it is a religion just like any other religion, it can be based of a personal understanding of the divine or a group understanding, it is not dogmatic or exclusive.

However, just like the "Religion of New Atheism it is a religion, based of some sort of faith.

Pagans may be trained in particular traditions or they may follow their own inspiration. Paganism is not dogmatic. Pagans pursue their own vision of the Divine as a direct and personal experience.

So you missed the bit where most pagans believe in reincarnation. Most religions like paganism hold little fear of death, one of the central ideas is reincarnation. If you look to cultures who believe in reincarnation there is little sign of the western fear of death. Take for example Japan where ritual suicide was commonly practiced.

Br Cornelius

[+Link of Hyrule]

The council of Nicacea was the point when the Church created by Paul stamped the Catholic church with a definition of what was officially Christianity. This was one of the final acts of a long process of creating the Paulian Catholic Church of Empire. This was when many of the ideas which had been common currency for centuries were declared heretical and banished. This is when many of the Gospels in circulation were officially banished to serve the cause of creating a pure doctrine amenable to expansion throughout the known world.

Br Cornelius

I agree that after this council, non-canonical gospels and texts were banned as heresy. However, it's a massive leap from there to saying this was the final process in creating "the Paulian Catholic Church of Empire" (I presume you meant to include the word "Roman" in that "Roman Empire" bit, if I'm wrong, let me know). For one, the Catholic Church (capital C Catholic, the small-letter catholic simply means "universal") didn't exist until the 10th Century AD, following the schism between what became the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church. And if you were intending to refer to this being the Church of the Roman Empire (aka, the official State Religion of Rome), then as noted that's simply an internet lie that's been propagated so much that people don't question it - it was only made a "legal religion" in the Empire, it wasn't until 391 AD, decades after the Council of Nicaea and long after Constantine was dead that it was declared the State Religion. Though he did lay the platform for the steep rise to power that did become Christianity, his role in the Council at Nicaea has been widely overstated.

[White Crane Feather]

As has been pointed out - for most of the history of the Bible it was taken as history with allegorical meaning layered over it. It is only modern day revisionism which denies this - and is exactly what you are attempting to do.

Frankly the Bible is a mess and itsw impossible to say that the modern interpretation we "enlightened" people of the 21th century make of it is any more accurate than the interpretation of a 3rd century cleric (with its literal age of the earth of a few thousand years) made of it - to think otherwise seems self delusional.

Br Cornelius

Now it's you with the opinion. I could care less who and for how long something has been taken literal. That dosnt mean it was meant to be. I leave that to the people who study ancient literature, history, archiology, anthropology etc etc.., and that is not the consensus. You are still makeing the same mistake as the literalist. Why is it that you think you know better than they do? Catch you latter bed time.

[Guest]

An honest answer, because we all fear the "cessation of our existence" after death!

That is pure projection - you have no way of guessing what "we all fear", you can only say what you fear and what some people who share your beliefs also fear.

If you are really an atheist - who has come fully to terms with what that really means - there can never be a fear of "cessation of our existence" since you fully understand that what is now is all there ever is. This is a very liberating concept.

Br Cornelius

[Alan McDougall]

If Christians just read the Old Testament and followed that they would be called Jews.

They are called Christians because they follow the teachings of Jesus when he came to Earth. He wasn't just here to teach however. He died carrying the sins and hurts of the world, so that everyone that came after, that believed in his sacrifice, would not have to sacrifice any longer, but would only have to ask to be forgiven, and they would. Being a Christian is following a way of life that started with Jesus, not Moses, or Solomon, or Abraham. Those people are just part of the prologue. Which sets the stage to understand what Jesus taught and what he did. We are not required to Follow the Old Testament. And that some Christians do is of their own doing, not of Jesus's doing. Jesus broke the relgious laws and Fulfilled them, so that they need no longer be followed. Just as he died as a sacrifice, so that we need not sacrifice, he fulfilled the dietary and cleanliness laws (The Laws of Moses) so they need not be followed any longer. Again... Those Christians who follow OT law do so out of ignorance.

They say God is the same as he has ever been, today, yesterday and tomorrow. But in the OT he wiped out entire peoples, like you said. God hasn't changed, but he has changed how he reveals what he wants for us over time. When we were moral infants, he treated us like infants. As we matured as moral beings, he treated us as more moral beings. I think this argument makes a lot of sense and fits into how Judaism and Christianity have slowly changed over time.

God still has the ability to wipe out entire nations, and occasionally he does. But more commonly, it is the work of the Enemy that causes such pain and suffering. And if you ask me why the Enemy has such power, I really couldn't tell you, except that We, the humans of Earth, gave that dominion, and power over to him. We had dominion once, and now the Enemy holds most of the power here on Earth. Just look around at all the negative in the world. God didn't cause that, humans did. Humans are nasty things in general.

In my opinion we should approach the Supreme Being with a lot of respect, because if we continue to annoy him as we have in the past and as we are now doing, he might just swat us off like we do with an irritating bug.

God is why we exist, and like a bundle of clay he can just burn his mistake and start over with a better loaf.