Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

joc
22 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Yeah, but I don't believe they were the true church. I believe they were the wolves that came in after. The men who slaughtered men were wolves, not followers of Jesus, in my opinion. Just because they claimed to be the true church and claimed to follow Christ does not mean they were  truthful and not deluded.

I mean, if you claim to follow someone, that means you have studied their teachings and follow their teachings. If you quite plainly do no such thing, your claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

And the fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy just adds abject blindness onto the pile.

The only followers of Christ were the Apostles...everyone else was just fodder of spectacle.

When the last Apostle died...the church reverted back into what it always had been.  They basically stuck a crucifix on top of the temple and went back to the old ways of money-changing in the church.  It has always been about money...it will always be about money...Faith, Trust, Love, Kindness...these have always been the condition of the Human Being.

Then....there are those who profess to be Christians who are anything but.  It is all an egotistical front.  I know a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
2 minutes ago, joc said:

The only followers of Christ were the Apostles...everyone else was just fodder of spectacle.

When the last Apostle died...the church reverted back into what it always had been.  They basically stuck a crucifix on top of the temple and went back to the old ways of money-changing in the church.  It has always been about money...it will always be about money...Faith, Trust, Love, Kindness...these have always been the condition of the Human Being.

Then....there are those who profess to be Christians who are anything but.  It is all an egotistical front.  I know a few.

There have been some men here and there, mostly dead now, who I have read and I believe they truly followed Christ as the apostles did, based on what they wrote. Some of them were treated poorly by the very ones they loved. But if it's true that the way is narrow and few ever find it, then this makes sense that you would see more deluded men and fewer humble men. And that unbelievers are often more humble and less materialistic than believers is like...the last nail in their coffin. Because they will actually condemn a man to hell who is more like Jesus than them. It's quite bizarre and upside down. It almost leaves you just speechless.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
19 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

I have really enjoyed talking with you guys today. You are less judgmental, more respectful  and more tolerant of other beliefs than a lot of the people I've run across in supposedly Christian forums who claim to follow Jesus. They are quite often intolerant of a different understanding than their own, sometimes coming to spittle flinging rage over the translation of a word - no kidding. They can really slaughter each other and get truly vicious and angry. It ought not to be so, but it sometimes is. Though you meet some very gentle, humble and caring ones there too. They're just harder to find.

I hope to return for more conversation some day soon. Thanks for not shrieking at me when you found out I believe God exists. Not sure why I thought you might...

Good to chat with you Jen - I hope you return soon. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
5 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

There have been some men here and there, mostly dead now, who I have read and I believe they truly followed Christ as the apostles did, based on what they wrote. Some of them were treated poorly by the very ones they loved. But if it's true that the way is narrow and few ever find it, then this makes sense that you would see more deluded men and fewer humble men. And that unbelievers are often more humble and less materialistic than believers is like...the last nail in their coffin. Because they will actually condemn a man to hell who is more like Jesus than them. It's quite bizarre and upside down. It almost leaves you just speechless.

Here is the bottom line of money and the church:

If you take Jesus out of the church (and there are many that have basically) as long as you keep the 'tithe' theme alive...you will have a church.

But...

If you take the 'money' out of the church...you can preach Christ Crucified all day long...but no one will be there to hear it.  That should tell us something.

What it tells me is that the Faithful will be Faithful as long as they can do it in comfort and style.  Which means....money.  All...about...money.  

Another thing is...why is America such a sick, twisted, violent place...when there is practically a church on every corner...and it's all..TAX FREE money!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
3 minutes ago, joc said:

Here is the bottom line of money and the church:

If you take Jesus out of the church (and there are many that have basically) as long as you keep the 'tithe' theme alive...you will have a church.

But...

If you take the 'money' out of the church...you can preach Christ Crucified all day long...but no one will be there to hear it.  That should tell us something.

What it tells me is that the Faithful will be Faithful as long as they can do it in comfort and style.  Which means....money.  All...about...money.  

Another thing is...why is America such a sick, twisted, violent place...when there is practically a church on every corner...and it's all..TAX FREE money!

I see this too.

I still hope that one day I might stumble across some small pocket of...true brothers. But for the most part, I only find them after they're dead. Of course...I don't really think they're dead! :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
Just now, Jen5 said:

I see this too.

I still hope that one day I might stumble across some small pocket of...true brothers. But for the most part, I only find them after they're dead. Of course...I don't really think they're dead! :)

There are only two kinds of people on this planet.  Dead ones and Living Ones.  The Dead ones tell no tales.  And the Living ones have egos.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
1 hour ago, joc said:

Here is the bottom line of money and the church:

If you take Jesus out of the church (and there are many that have basically) as long as you keep the 'tithe' theme alive...you will have a church.

But...

If you take the 'money' out of the church...you can preach Christ Crucified all day long...but no one will be there to hear it.  That should tell us something.

What it tells me is that the Faithful will be Faithful as long as they can do it in comfort and style.  Which means....money.  All...about...money.  

Another thing is...why is America such a sick, twisted, violent place...when there is practically a church on every corner...and it's all..TAX FREE money!

Sadly, that's all mighty true indeed Joc.

Money = Evil??.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
12 hours ago, Jen5 said:

Faith just means believe and trust. I wouldn't put my faith in someone imaginary. And they would be imaginary to me unless or until they showed me they were anything other than. Or else I would just be wishing and hoping.  That's not belief and trust. In my opinion.


Well yes, that would be the case if there werent any indications / indirect proof at all.. but we have (witness) accounts of His messengers throughout the ages, as well as indirect, corroborating evidence in the construct of our reality.

 

11 hours ago, Jen5 said:

 

Okay, I get you. I think they can be compared th ough...why would you not believe the loch Ness monster exists but then believe God exists if you have no proof of either one? Wouldn't that be more of a ho pe than a belief?

 


You would equate the necessary level of direct / physical proof of existence between a physical animal living in a physical (earthly) environment leaving physical proof of its existence with a non physical consciousness existing outside our reality leaving no physical proof (of His existence)? Again; for me to believe in the Loch Ness monster I would need to see physical / direct proof of its existence to label belief in its (physical) existence as rational. With G*d, such a demand would seem highly illogical, irrational, and completely misplaced (given G*d is inherently non- physical, unmeasurable, existing outside our reality).

Given your position here (if I understand it correctly), you seem to have found direct, physical evidence of the existence of G*d. Would you care to tell what that evidence entails?

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
10 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Well yes, that would be the case if there werent any indications at all.. but we have witness accounts of His messengers throughout the ages, as well as indirect, corroborating evidence in the construct of our reality.

 


You would equate the necessary level of direct / physical proof of existence between a physical animal living in a physical (earthly) environment leaving physical proof of its existence with a non physical consciousness existing outside our reality leaving no physical proof (of His existence)? Again; for me to believe in the Loch Ness monster I would need to see physical / direct proof of its existence to label belief in its (physical) existence as rational. With G*d, such a demand would seem highly illogical, irrational, and completely misplaced (given G*d is inherently non- physical, unmeasurable, existing outside our reality).

Given your position here (if I understand it correctly), you seem to have found direct, physical evidence of the existence of G*d. Would you care to tell what that evidence entails?

Well sure I could talk about my evidence, but it wont, and shouldn't be, enough to convince anyone but myself. But no...not physical evidence that I can pass along. And even if I could, it wouldn't be enough for anyone, (and it shouldn't be). Even men who saw Him perform miracles didn't believe He was God. There couldn't possibly be any more direct physical evidence than that.

Actually...there is some bit of physical evidence, sometimes, for some people, but it won't be accepted as such. There are , for some, these odd goosebumps, even when it is quite warm, and an attending feeling of joy or peace, when God calls out to them. And if they meet someone else who has experienced this, there's the physical evidence of seeing the same goosebumps on that person's arms that are on theirs.

There's great biblical support for this, actually, from a man in Job who said a spirit passed by him and the flesh of his arms rose up, to the story of Samuel thinking eli was calling for him at night.

But it's not proof for others. It's proof for those who have experienced it. To others, it just sounds stark, raving mad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

Btw, did anyone ever look into the conflict between Paul and James the Just, the first Bishop of Jerusalem.. and the ideological split it resulted in?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
9 hours ago, joc said:

The only followers of Christ were the Apostles...everyone else was just fodder of spectacle.

When the last Apostle died...the church reverted back into what it always had been.  They basically stuck a crucifix on top of the temple and went back to the old ways of money-changing in the church.  It has always been about money...it will always be about money...Faith, Trust, Love, Kindness...these have always been the condition of the Human Being.

Then....there are those who profess to be Christians who are anything but.  It is all an egotistical front.  I know a few.

I agree the church has largely reverted back to the same condition Israel was in and that God was angry about.

if you compare where they went wrong to what Jesus preached, such as to not worry over what you will eat, drink and be clothed with because God knows what you need, you see...the exact same lack of trust as in the desert! you see the same insistence on amassing wealth today as you see with Israel disobeying and collecting more food than they were instructed to in the desert! It's astounding, because most Christians have this view that God demanded trust (faith) from those in the desert but that THEY have a magic charm and will escape their own lack of trust. But do they see their lack of trust? No. Because if they did, you would see agonies and humility from them rather than arrogant judging, EVEN though they say they know they will be judged more harshly than unbelievers!

In fact, Jesus said to religious hypocrites: if you didn't claim you could see, you would have no sin! This puts the responsibility for men seeing squarely on God's shoulders. He was saying that a man who can't see God at all (yet) and who doesn't claim he can, has no sin, whereas a man who claims he can see but is blindly hypocritical and making the same exact mistakes as Israel concerning trust, has sin! It's so revolutionary, the fact that He loved unbelievers and had extremely harsh words for religious hypocrites, that you almost can t wrap your mind around it!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
8 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Btw, did anyone ever look into the conflict between Paul and James the Just, the first Bishop of Jerusalem.. and the ideological split it resulted in?

 

No...! I've never even heard of it...! A historian wrote of it? That would have been a very much earlier split than I ever imagined. Wow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
25 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

No...! I've never even heard of it...! A historian wrote of it? That would have been a very much earlier split than I ever imagined. Wow!

 

The testimony of the early Church confirms James the Just’s position and importance. Hegesippus, a second century Palestinian Christian, who traveled widely and carefully investigated the history of the preceding century, says:

"Control of the church passed [from Christ] to the apostles, together with James, whom everyone from the Lord’s time till our own has called the Righteous."

James is appropriately considered the first bishop of Jerusalem, the mother church. Clement of Alexandria (d. 210) states:

"After the ascension of the savior, Peter and James [the brother of the apostle John] and John did not struggle for glory, because they had previously been given honor by the Savior, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem."

This, this and this provides a pretty good summary of the ideological schism that ensued after Jesus' crucifixion, between the followers of James and those of the self proclaimed Apostle Paul.
 

Quote

Letter of Peter to James

For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy....to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses...   (emphasis added)

Some scholars see this "enemy" as a reference to Paul; others see it as a reference to Simon Magus, the man Peter is indeed actively engaging in debate in the story. Those who see Paul as an "enemy" of Peter are drawing this conclusion from the characteristics listed above which does seem to point to the theological differences of Paul and James.


Fascinating subject matter, I find anyway..

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Quote

Epistle of Peter to James


Peter to James, the lord and bishop of the holy Church, under the Father of all, through Jesus Christ, wishes peace always.(1)

Chapter I.-Doctrine of Reserve.

Knowing, my brother, your eager desire after that which is for the advantage of us all, I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial; but if any one has been proved and found worthy, then to commit them to him, after the manner in which Moses delivered his books to the Seventy who succeeded to his chair. Wherefore also the fruit of that caution appears even till now. For his countrymen keep the same rule of monarchy and polity everywhere, being unable in any way to think otherwise, or to be led out of the way of the much-indicating Scriptures. For, according to the rule delivered to them, they endeavour to correct the discordances of the Scriptures, if any one, haply not knowing the traditions, is confounded at the various utterances of the prophets. Wherefore they charge no one to teach, unless he has first learned how the Scriptures must be used. And thus they have amongst them one God, one law, one hope.

Chapter II.-Misrepresentation of Peter's Doctrine.

In order, therefore, that the like may also happen to those among us as to these Seventy, give the books of my preachings to our brethren, with the like mystery of initiation, that they may indoctrinate those who wish to take part in teaching; for if it be not so done, our word of truth will be rent into many opinions. And this I know, not as being a prophet, but as already seeing the beginning of this very evil. For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy.(2) And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: "The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."(3) And this He has said, that all things might come to pass. But these men, professing, I know not how, to know my mind, undertake to explain my words, which they have heard of me, more intelligently than I who spoke them, telling their catechumens that this is my meaning, which indeed I never thought of. But if, while I am still alive, they dare thus to misrepresent me, how much more will those who shall come after me dare to do so!

[..]

https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/pseudo-clementine-literature/epistle-of-peter-to-james.html


Thought I'd provide the whole epistle of Peter to James.. as it refers to one of many explicit statements of Christ which modern day Christianity just seems to simply circumvent, ignore, deny.. Just like all the instances where Christ explicitly states all his power is by leave of G*d Almighty, by whom he is sent (as a prophet); the absolute plethora of confirmations he is in fact inherently unequal to The Father. In such cases, it seems to me modern day, mainstream Christianity chooses to ignore such countless explicit statements, and cling to one or two implicit variants to 'prove their case', interpreting them as they desire.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

This little shameful episode not only didn't help matters but perpetuated a millennia of abhorrent unspeakable acts on behalf of the Church ...
 

Quote

 

~

Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) was the most important theorist of the humanist movement. ... His most famous work is On the Donation of Constantine, an oration in which Valla uses new philological methods to attack the authenticity of the most important document justifying the papacy's claims to temporal rule.

 

~

The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope.

 

~

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
39 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Thought I'd provide the whole epistle of Peter to James.. as it refers to one of many explicit statements of Christ which modern day Christianity just seems to simply circumvent, ignore, deny.. 

If you are referring to 'jot or tittle' passage it's not that 'simple' since there are other explicit statements that contradict what it seems to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If you are referring to 'jot or tittle' passage it's not that 'simple' since there are other explicit statements that contradict what it seems to say.


I am referring to the following (in whole):

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the 
   
kingdom of heaven.


..Please feel free to forward the contradictions here, I would request them to originate from Christ though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
14 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


I am referring to the following (in whole):

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the 
   
kingdom of heaven.


..Please feel free to forward the contradictions here, I would request them to originate from Christ though.

Leviticus indicates you should not eat blood, yet that's exactly what Jesus requests at the Last Supper.  Jesus touched lepers which would make him unclean, and it is also questionable whether he 'kept the Sabbath holy' since he would go around healing people on that day regardless. 

Do you, or Peter above, think that Christians cannot eat shellfish?  This is usually addressed by Christians with references to moral, ceremonial, and spiritual law and how some laws still apply and some don't.  I don't consider these divisions 'simple' if we're just working from scripture and, if one has no inclination to interpret these vague passages in the most favorable way to Christianity, can appear contradictory or at least unclear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Leviticus indicates you should not eat blood, yet that's exactly what Jesus requests at the Last Supper.  Jesus touched lepers which would make him unclean, and it is also questionable whether he 'kept the Sabbath holy' since he would go around healing people on that day regardless. 

Do you, or Peter above, think that Christians cannot eat shellfish?  This is usually addressed by Christians with references to moral, ceremonial, and spiritual law and how some laws still apply and some don't.  I don't consider these divisions 'simple' if we're just working from scripture and, if one has no inclination to interpret these vague passages in the most favorable way to Christianity, can appear contradictory or at least unclear.

 

I think Jesus addressed this problem when he said "they strain at gnats and swallow camels."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

I think Jesus addressed this problem when he said "they strain at gnats and swallow camels."

 

 

Which also means that Jesus was lying when he stated that not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, which also disqualifies him to his claim as messiah.

Come to think of it, Jesus was never officially anointed accordingly as to scriptural law too ...

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Which also means that Jesus was lying when he stated that not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, which also disqualifies him to his claim as messiah.

Come to think of it, Jesus was never officially anointed accordingly as to scriptural law too ...

~

 

Do you think it's possible that what the Bible records as something Jesus said, might be entirely wrong? That he never said what is recorded but instead said something else?

I know, I know, if that's true, then what can you believe is true when it comes to the text of the Bible?

I'll only say that all of it must be determined by one's personal religious experiences with the Spirit of Truth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Will Due said:

 

Do you think it's possible that what the Bible records as something Jesus said, might be entirely wrong? That he never said what is recorded but instead said something else?

I know, I know, if that's true, then what can you believe is true when it comes to the text of the Bible?

I'll only say that all of it must be determined by one's personal religious experiences with the Spirit of Truth.

 

 

I'll leave this to the Bible thumpers thank you very much. All in all, accordingly as to what is clearly legible and is documented ... Jesus lied or Jesus had no claim to any messianic throne, that much is clear ...

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I'll leave this to the Bible thumpers thank you very much. All in all, accordingly as to what is clearly legible and is documented ... Jesus lied or Jesus had no claim to any messianic throne, that much is clear ...

~

What's the difference between Jesus, and all the thousands and thousands of others claiming to be the Son of God or a Messiah or God?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, danydandan said:

What's the difference between Jesus, and all the thousands and thousands of others claiming to be the Son of God or a Messiah or God?

Idolatry ?

Oh .. let's not forget the Urantia Book ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.