Man Made Religions vs. Christianity.

[amyluv]

Alrighty people, you've officially changed me.
No, I've not become and atheist overnight. However, your arguments
regarding my statements like "Christianity is not a religion, it's a
relationship" caused me to look further into my reasoning. Out of
what found, this article made the most sense to me. I'll post here
mostly for the information of other Christians.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5533

So, I will now recant my previous statement and replace it with
"Christianity is more than a religion, it's a relationship". Which
actually as I remember is more closely related to my first thought
when I made my mind on the subject, which was something like "It's not
about religion, it's about a relationship".

Is Christianity a religion, yes. Does it vary much from other
religions, very much so. I do believe that there are huge differences
between the religions the world has created, and Christianity. Is it
still a religion, yes. Uncle Uncle, I give... it's a religion.

I think the point Christians are trying to make about not calling
themselves religious is that when people look at religion, they
usually think about a set of rules and codes to live by. They look at
life as some kind of test that God is putting us through, trying to
find out if we are "worthy" of heaven. Life is like the tryouts for
the "big game," they say, live well and you'll make the cut. 

There is also a very large conflict between what "religious people"
are painted like in the bible, and what Jesus calls us to be.

Then the Lord said to him, "You Pharisees are so careful to clean the
outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are still filthy--full
of greed and wickedness!" (Luke 11:39, NLT).
 
The Pharisees were the best of the best when it came to religion
(Jewish religion to be exact). When they ate, they didn't just rinse
their hands, they practically took a bath. When they gave 10 percent
to the temple, they measured everything out precisely so God wouldn't
be "short-changed." If any law of Moses was unclear, they'd make new
laws to cover all the bases. And if the people wanted to recognize
their spirituality by giving them the best seats, then so be it. 

Jesus took one look at the Pharisees and called them fools and
hypocrites. What? The best of the best of the religious people of
that day, and Jesus calls them names?

While the Pharisees were busy washing their outside, they allowed
pride and arrogance to fester in their hearts. While they measured out
exactly 10 percent, they ignored the needy people they could easily
have provided for. And while they were careful to follow any number of
hundreds of little laws, they forgot the greatest command of God. "You
must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and
all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5, NLT). The Pharisees were ALL
about religion, but had no relationship.

So is religion bad? No. But Religion without relationship is. Can
you be religious without a relationship, sadly yes yes yes. Can you
have a relationship with God without religion? Hooooo, you guys gotta
give me more time to let that one sit.
The definition of the word Religious in the dictionary may technically
describe one aspect of being a Christian. However, the common
perception of the word does not. The common perception of the word
even today is more closely thought to be related to what the Pharisees
were. If it wasn't... then why are you against it?

From others looking inward and not understanding what's going on in
the inside, Christianity looks exactly like any other religion; a set
or rules you have to live by "or else". No surprise there. Duh...
why wouldn't it? That's all it is to many a church, denomination, and
many a family who forced it down throats of their children. No wonder
so many people from "Christian" homes renounce faith. Many a
christian leader as well, has abused their authority and turned their
church into a group of people jumping through hoops. And conveniently
for them, most of those hoops provided certain benefits for that
church leader (some obvious, some not so obvious). Very convenient
indeed! Most people who think they know what True Christianity is,
aren't even close.
Religion takes on many forms: lip service, good deeds or works,
church. But none of these actions alone bring eternal life. Without
faith, religion is useless. Not only useless, but very very dangerous.

The only way to enter into heaven is to know Jesus and to have a
relationship with Him. You can't possible catch that by just going
through the motions. Christ isn't about "doing". He's about
"being".

Religion calls people to follow it. Follow the rules, do the stuff,
and your okay (as long as you don't stop doing the "right" stuff and
don't start doing other "bad" stuff). Christianity calls people to
follow Jesus. Christianity says "we're not perfect... but follow him
anyway. We're gonna stumble and make crazy bad mistakes, but get back
up and follow him anyway".

Many people call themselves Catholic's because they've gone to some
classes and had their confirmation, therefore they are Catholic. No
heart change, and they can't even explain to me what they learned in
classes. Very similar rituals exist in most religions. Man has put
physically measurable goals for people, if they hit it, they're in (as
long as they stay good). Christianity cannot be measured by anything
you've physically done, or anything that others can see. (Although
you can argue the fruits of the spirit here, I would submit that those
are again, not tests that can be accurately measured on the outside.
Even if they were, they were setup in the bible, not by man). And
yes, you can argue baptism here, but please don't get into that.
Again, churches requiring baptism is convenient for church leaders for
many reasons. There are good arguments for and against this in the
bible, so I don't really care either way. {Side note: If God didn't
make it perfectly clear, why bother trying to figure him out?
Concentrate on what he did make perfectly clear!} Baptism is an
outward sign of an inward change (faith). The change comes from the
inside though. You don't just decide to get dunked in water and bam,
you're now saved.

Jesus didn't come to this earth to start a new group of people in
motion with a new set of rules they must now follow. He came down and
sacrificed himself so that it would be possible for us to have
relationship with God. He came to fulfill the laws, not create new
ones.

[amyluv]

Sub-Message:

Differences Between Christianity and other religions (the "isms"):

1) Christianity is simple. A 7 year old can understand it. There
are no classes to get in, you can have more questions and still be
"in". You don't have to prove knowledge to any man before you can
know God. There is no test.

2) Christianity is not a "blind" faith. It encourages people to
question, to explore. "Seek and you will find me". Go ahead, seek.
It's okay. Ask hard questions. It's okay. You'll eventually find
him by seeking knowledge found all over in archeology, science and
nature. Jesus is confident enough that we welcomes people to question
him. He also offers answers, unlike some other religions that simply
state "well, we'll never know but it's the search that matters".
Christ says it is indeed possible to know. Possible to find answers.
Yes, there are some things very difficult for us to comprehend,
understand, and especially, to accept. There are also those things
beyond human comprehension. But, those things are told to us in the
bible, and God has given us proof that the bible is reliable.
Therefore, we're not told to just believe what it says with no proof,
but to believe what it says because there is proof that it is what it
says it is.
http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/answer.php?religion_blind_faith


3) The "Isms" all have a fingerprint of man on them.
a) If you look at their purpose, their beliefs, you can almost
always tell what kind of a person started that religion, without even
studying the history. Ex: in Islam, the only way you can know for
sure that you will go to heaven is by dying in a holy war. And... if
you do die in a holy war, you not only get a golden ticket to
guaranteed heaven, but you get numerous virgin women there waiting for
you! (I've heard 23, I've heard 86, the exact number doesn't matter
much for this argument). Tell me that was not contrived by a
political male. Any isms I've looked into, I can usually tell who
probably contrived it. But I can't in Christianity. There's no
levels of achievement. There's no people or people group at the top.
In fact, it puts down those in high places, and brings up people in
low places. It makes everyone equal. If one group of people
contrived this whole thing, it's very likely they would have inserted
something that made their group look good. Most other religions have
this. Instead, Jesus says everyone's equal, and that there is nobody
better than anyone else. He flips society on it's backside, saying the
lowest is now the highest, and vice versa.

b) That person who started it is almost always, from what I've seen,
painted in a great picture, without flaw. And the beliefs usually are
quite convenient for the person who started it. Contract that with
the bible, which is full real people, painted with good parts and many
bad or ugly parts too. Parts that those people were the ones writing
it, they probably would have left out. Noah followed what God said
and built the ark, but then at the end we read about how he got drunk
and got naked (in our day, that would equate to the country song
"Tequilla makes her clothes fall off"). God told Jonah to go to
Ninevah, and Jonah refused. He refused and refused and even went the
opposite direction of Ninevah. Eventually, he did do what God had
asked (3 days in a belly of a whale gives you some time to think
apparently) but he was still incredible bitter about the whole thing.
I can give example after example for this but I'll stop here.
However, using Jonah since he's pretty well known... if he had written
the book of Jonah, don't you think he would have left some of that
out? Especially the sheer bitterness at the end. It's our human
nature to only paint ourselves in good ways. Even childhood stories
we take from the bible, like the story of Jonah, we gloss over the not
so great parts. Have you ever seen a baby's crib bedding with Noah
and Mrs. Noah and all the animals, is Noah ever ever pictured as
passed out naked in a tent? Nope. How many of you even knew that's
how the story ended? It's our human need to "forget" about the
inconvenient parts. However, not one person in the bible is painted
in only a good way, except Jesus. And he didn't write it.

Continuing on with this one, because it's of vital importance. You
can say the people who did write it were Jesus' disciples and their
followers. But look at the stories of the disciples for a second.
i) they all came from "less than" backgrounds. Anyone looking to
start a religion usually picks someone respected and reputable to be
their cohorts. You don't pick people that others look down upon.
ii) they all questioned Jesus, all the time. They just didn't
get it. They followed him because they saw something very different,
but they were constantly questioning why the heck he was doing what he
was doing? If they were writing out of hindsight, (or telling others
who wrote it, like Luke) the tendency is to "forget" about the part
that makes you look stupid.
iii) they all ran away when Jesus was arrested. Even Peter, who
swore up and down to Jesus the day before that he will never ever ever
no matter what deny him... the very next day while he was hiding in
the corner, denied him 3 times. That doesn't look very good when your
writing your biography.
iv) they all were tortured and flogged, and finally suffered death
by some of the cruelest methods then known. All because they refused
to recant that they had seen Jesus resurrected. Others have died for
a lie, but they knew it was a lie. If the Jesus had never come back
to life, then these men knew it. And they all died for a lie they
knew was a lie? Why?

c) All the "isms" have rules designed to keep it's followers in
line. Usually these threats are designed around losing your place in
church, your salvation, or whatever that religion offers you as a
"reward" for being it's follower. The Bible states pretty clearly
that you can't DO anything to earn it, therefore you can't DO anything
to lose it. Once it's yours, it's yours. There's no threat from God
(once your "saved") that you'll lose his favor... you have it once and
for all. We as humans do not like this. We want to keep people
morally responsible, and we want them to have dire consequences if
they step out of line. Again, this shows a human fingerprint, it's
not something we would have come up with on our own. The prodigal son
for example, we read that story and often find it hard to believe that
the father still wants him back. And even if we can accept that, the
fact that there are NO consequences for his son, and the father even
throws a party for him, and puts him back in his place of power?? The
son himself even said he wasn't worthy, and only asked that his father
let him be a servant. Humans don't make that up.

d) If you look in the graves of all the leaders of all the
religions, they're all still there... except one. There is one thing
man absolutely cannot do by himself, defeat death. But Jesus did.

e) If you look at all the "isms" that have some sort of manuscript
or they're own "bible", it doesn't predict anything. The bible has
8,000 predictions, and and half of those have already came true (in
3,268 verses, which yes is less than half, but some verses fulfill
more than one prediction). Many of the predictions were made in the
old testament. Predictions so obscure the mathematical likelihood of
them coming true is truly insane (look it up if you want the number, I
don't remember). Then the New Testament, most (but not all) of the
predictions were met, to the penny. Again, the mathematical
likelihood is insane.

Ok, I looked it up. According to a man named Soner, who In 1944
published his results in "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the
Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible". He said there were 300
prophecies about the man Jesus alone. He found that "the probability
of one person fulfilling just eight of the specific prophecies was one
chance in 1017 (one followed by 17 zeros). How about one person
fulfilling just 48 of the over 300 prophecies? Stoner calculated these
odds at one chance in 10157". More over, "the American Scientific
Affiliation gave Soner's work their stamp of approval".
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

f) The bible was written over a span of 1500 years, in different
locations spanning 3 continents, with over 40 different authors. I
have a friend who co-authors books, her last one had 3 authors. 3...
and they can barely agree upon anything. The bible had 40 who didn't
even know each other... and the message in the entire bible stays the
same throughout. Other "isms" books were written by usually just one
person who was "divinely inspired". God knew that's not enough proof
for us. One person says they're divinely inspired, we don't believe.
40 of them, most of whom don't know each other, 1500 years, and
they're all divinely inspired with the same message?

g) the other leaders of the "isms" never claimed they were God. Jesus
did.

h) many of the other "isms" add to or take away stuff from the Bible.
They either add their own books (like God forgot something the first
time?) or they pick and choose parts of the bible to accept and not
accept. But, the bible says it is not to be added to or taken away
from. Like it or not, you have to take the whole picture and not add
your own human things to it. Since then, even Christians have
continued to try to add their own stuff. Why? Because we don't like
what it says. Humans would not have written something so
controversial, so against natural human reasoning.

i) Archeology hasn't ever been able to prove the bible wrong. With a
book with such crazy stuff in it, why can't we find any evidence
against it? But instead we continue to find things that actually
prove the bible right. Skeptics keep coming up with stuff like "the
bible talks about Hittites, but there's not other proof that they ever
existed, therefore the bible must have made them up". But wait a few
years later... and what does archeology find? Evidence for Hittites.
Same with evidence for a man named Pontius Pilate (the man who allowed
the jewish religious leaders to crucify Jesus. Again, skeptics said
there's no evidence outside the bible for that man. But since then,
archeology has found evidence, again more proof piling up on the side
of the Bible's reliability.


So, there's many more differences, and even a few similarities, but
I'm done for now.

I welcome any comments, especially from those who don't agree!

Amy

[Drafterman]

On Jul 11, 3:03 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> Alrighty people, you've officially changed me.
> No, I've not become and atheist overnight.  However, your arguments
> regarding my statements like "Christianity is not a religion, it's a
> relationship" caused me to look further into my reasoning.  Out of
> what found, this article made the most sense to me.  I'll post here
> mostly for the information of other Christians.http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5533

An interesting article, but from my point of view it merely seems like
they've added a new move to this dance of theirs.

>
> So, I will now recant my previous statement and replace it with
> "Christianity is more than a religion, it's a relationship".  Which
> actually as I remember is more closely related to my first thought
> when I made my mind on the subject, which was something like "It's not
> about religion, it's about a relationship".
>
> Is Christianity a religion, yes.  Does it vary much from other
> religions, very much so.  I do believe that there are huge differences
> between the religions the world has created, and Christianity.  Is it
> still a religion, yes.  Uncle Uncle, I give... it's a religion.

Generally speaking, Christianity is similar to other religions.
Specifically, it is different, but so are all other religions. They
all present something unique. What is lacking (aside from a reason to
accept religion at all) is why we should accept Christianity's
uniqueness over Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc.

>
> I think the point Christians are trying to make about not calling
> themselves religious is that when people look at religion, they
> usually think about a set of rules and codes to live by. They look at
> life as some kind of test that God is putting us through, trying to
> find out if we are "worthy" of heaven. Life is like the tryouts for
> the "big game," they say, live well and you'll make the cut. 

It is, and that "test" is the crux of Christianity: "Believe or burn"
or "Believe and be saved". If you elimate those, then you elimate the
reason for being a Christian. If there is no test, then we needn't
believe. No test, no judgment.

The problem is not that there are tests and rules and a code, but that
they are based upon outdated and fallacious reasoning.

We shouldn't kill, lie, steal or cheat. But not because God told us
not to do it, but because they harm other people and a philosophy that
allows such actions is not tenable when applied to the whole.

The test should be: "Believe because its true, and here's why" The
problem is there is a great lacking of the "and here's why" part and
it almost always seems to boil down to an appeal to emotion.

At the end of the day you have to believe that either God judges us
based on a trivial belief in him (or his son) or he doesn't. If he
does, then you can't get around the "Believe or burn"/"Believe and be
saved" appeal to emotional. If he doesn't, then you've remove any
reason to believe in Christianity.

>
> There is also a very large conflict between what "religious people"
> are painted like in the bible, and what Jesus calls us to be.
>
> Then the Lord said to him, "You Pharisees are so careful to clean the
> outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are still filthy--full
> of greed and wickedness!" (Luke 11:39, NLT).
>  
> The Pharisees were the best of the best when it came to religion
> (Jewish religion to be exact). When they ate, they didn't just rinse
> their hands, they practically took a bath. When they gave 10 percent
> to the temple, they measured everything out precisely so God wouldn't
> be "short-changed." If any law of Moses was unclear, they'd make new
> laws to cover all the bases. And if the people wanted to recognize
> their spirituality by giving them the best seats, then so be it. 
>
> Jesus took one look at the Pharisees and called them fools and
> hypocrites. What?  The best of the best of the religious people of
> that day, and Jesus calls them names?
>
> While the Pharisees were busy washing their outside, they allowed
> pride and arrogance to fester in their hearts. While they measured out
> exactly 10 percent, they ignored the needy people they could easily
> have provided for. And while they were careful to follow any number of
> hundreds of little laws, they forgot the greatest command of God. "You
> must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and
> all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5, NLT).  The Pharisees were ALL
> about religion, but had no relationship.

Yes, and Christian's attempts to say that Christianity isn't a
religion is merely affirmation of the concept that religion is bad.
They want Christianity to appear good, but they realize that organized
religion has a bad reputation, and has attempted to project a
different image of Christianity by saying it isn't a religion. But
what does this do? Nothing. Just because I change the wrapping on a
package, it doesn't change what's in the package.

This looks good on paper, but in practice it falls short. As baseless
and contradictory as they may be, those rules are at least somewhat
objective, even if selectively applied. What does it mean to have a
relationship with him? Clearly it cannot be like any human-human
relationship. So one wonders why this word is even used, since it will
be so alien and different.

How does one enter and maintain this relationship? Any answer will be
subjective. That is, your opinion. Either that, or will be so vague
and general as to be useless. And how can one force themselves into
such a relationship?

Can people make themselves fall in love with each other?

With no objective measure, how do you know you are having a
relationship with the right being? Or in the right way? Maybe your
personal conception of Jesus is wrong? How do you verify it?

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Amy:

The issue was never whether Christianity is different from other
religions. Buddhism is ALSO different from other religions. Buddhism
is entirely a different *kind* of religion than, say, Islam or
Christianity. In fact, Islam and Christianity have far *more* in
common with one another than either one has in common with Buddhism.
In fact, Hinduism and Buddhism although the latter springs from the
former, are more different from one another than Islam and
Christianity are. To say that religion X is different than religion Y
is to say nothing particularly meaningful

On Jul 11, 12:03 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:

> So, I will now recant my previous statement and replace it with
> "Christianity is more than a religion, it's a relationship".  Which
> actually as I remember is more closely related to my first thought
> when I made my mind on the subject, which was something like "It's not
> about religion, it's about a relationship".

I appreciate your attempts to have your statements have a minimally
tangential connection to reality. :)

>
> Is Christianity a religion, yes.  Does it vary much from other
> religions, very much so.  I do believe that there are huge differences
> between the religions the world has created, and Christianity.  Is it
> still a religion, yes.  Uncle Uncle, I give... it's a religion.

Again, thank you. It's always nice when people acknowledge that
reality is, well, reality.

>
> I think the point Christians are trying to make about not calling
> themselves religious is that when people look at religion, they
> usually think about a set of rules and codes to live by. They look at
> life as some kind of test that God is putting us through, trying to
> find out if we are "worthy" of heaven. Life is like the tryouts for
> the "big game," they say, live well and you'll make the cut. 

The argument you are making is interesting and, in point of fact, is
one of the core problems I have with Protestant Christianity.
Certainly since Calvin, Christians have had this theology that they
are 'saved by grace and not works'. The problem with this theology,
in my mind, is that it lets Christians off the hook altogether too
easy. You don't have to endeavor to be a decent human being because
whether you are is entirely beside the point because it won't save
you. According to Christian theology (well, according to Protestant
theology in its exclusivist vein) the Jain who goes out of her way to
avoid doing harm to something so humble as an ant is *still* damned
while the mass-murderer who has a conversion experience the night
before he is executed is saved.

>
> Jesus took one look at the Pharisees and called them fools and
> hypocrites. What?  The best of the best of the religious people of
> that day, and Jesus calls them names?

You are taking this story out of context. The story is about an
internecine struggle within Judaism and without that understanding the
story does not make ANY sense what-so-ever.

> The definition of the word Religious in the dictionary may technically
> describe one aspect of being a Christian.

And for the purposes of this discussion, the most germane aspect.

>
> From others looking inward and not understanding what's going on in
> the inside,  Christianity looks exactly like any other religion; a set
> or rules you have to live by "or else".  No surprise there.  Duh...
> why wouldn't it?

As a matter of fact, that is a *very* accurate description. One need
only witness American Protestantism's problem with homosexuals. You
can be anything you want within Protestant circles *except*
homosexual.

> Many people call themselves Catholic's because they've gone to some
> classes and had their confirmation, therefore they are Catholic.  No
> heart change, and they can't even explain to me what they learned in
> classes.

I could say the very same thing about Protestants. Most Protestants
couldn't give you the cultural context out of which their religion
grew if their lives depended upon it.

Cheers
DGG

[Drafterman]

On Jul 11, 3:16 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> Sub-Message:
>
> Differences Between Christianity and other religions (the "isms"):
>
> 1)   Christianity is simple.  A 7 year old can understand it.  There
> are no classes to get in, you can have more questions and still be
> "in".   You don't have to prove knowledge to any man before you can
> know God.  There is no test.

A 7 year old can understand that Santa brings him presents and the
tooth fairy buys his teeth (yes, 7 may be a little old for this but
the beliefs of a 7-year old should not be compelling). I'm not sure
what the signficance of this is. Should we put stock into what a child
can and cannot believe?

Children believe many false things and cannot understand many true and
valuable things. A 7-year old probably cannot formulate and balance a
personal budget. Does that mean this concept is valueless?

Also, wouldn't this make Judaism even simpler? It's half of the
Christian Bible, right? Less stuff to worry about. Also, atheism is
even simpler!

>
> 2)   Christianity is not a "blind" faith.  It encourages people to
> question, to explore.  "Seek and you will find me".  Go ahead, seek.
> It's okay.  Ask hard questions.  It's okay.  You'll eventually find
> him by seeking knowledge found all over in archeology, science and
> nature.  Jesus is confident enough that we welcomes people to question
> him.  He also offers answers, unlike some other religions that simply
> state "well, we'll never know but it's the search that matters".
> Christ says it is indeed possible to know.  Possible to find answers.
> Yes, there are some things very difficult for us to comprehend,
> understand, and especially, to accept.  There are also those things
> beyond human comprehension.   But, those things are told to us in the
> bible, and God has given us proof that the bible is reliable.
> Therefore, we're not told to just believe what it says with no proof,
> but to believe what it says because there is proof that it is what it
> says it is.http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/answer.php?religion_blind_faith

This is a mischaracterization. Christianity only accepts people to
explore and validates their exploration if and only if they arrive at
the conclusion that Christianity is right! You are wrong in that the
Bible does not say to believe without proof, in fact it most
explicitly says to do just that:

"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when
Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen
the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the
print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and
thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days
again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came
Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace
be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and
behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my
side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and
said unto him, My LORD and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas,
because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed:

****Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.****

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His
disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through His name." (John 20:24-31)

>
> 3)  The "Isms" all have a fingerprint of man on them.
>   a) If you look at their purpose, their beliefs, you can almost
> always tell what kind of a person started that religion, without even
> studying the history.  Ex:  in Islam, the only way you can know for
> sure that you will go to heaven is by dying in a holy war.  And... if
> you do die in a holy war, you not only get a golden ticket to
> guaranteed heaven, but you get numerous virgin women there waiting for
> you!  (I've heard 23, I've heard 86, the exact number doesn't matter
> much for this argument).  Tell me that was not contrived by a
> political male.  Any isms I've looked into, I can usually tell who
> probably contrived it.  But I can't in Christianity.  There's no
> levels of achievement.  There's no people or people group at the top.
> In fact, it puts down those in high places, and brings up people in
> low places.  It makes everyone equal.  If one group of people
> contrived this whole thing, it's very likely they would have inserted
> something that made their group look good.  Most other religions have
> this.  Instead, Jesus says everyone's equal, and that there is nobody
> better than anyone else. He flips society on it's backside, saying the
> lowest is now the highest, and vice versa.

I see nothing unique about Christianity in this regard. It has all the
markings of a man-made religion to me.

Except your examples include the Old Testament. Why aren't you a Jew?

>
> Continuing on with this one, because it's of vital importance.  You
> can say the people who did write it were Jesus' disciples and their
> followers.  But look at the stories of the disciples for a second.
>      i) they all came from "less than" backgrounds.  Anyone looking to
> start a religion usually picks someone respected and reputable to be
> their cohorts.  You don't pick people that others look down upon.

Really? What is the basis for this?

>      ii) they all questioned Jesus, all the time.  They just didn't
> get it.  They followed him because they saw something very different,
> but they were constantly questioning why the heck he was doing what he
> was doing?  If they were writing out of hindsight, (or telling others
> who wrote it, like Luke) the tendency is to "forget" about the part
> that makes you look stupid.

If, and only if, we accept the gospel accounts as true. We don't know
that events happen as they are depicted.

>     iii) they all ran away when Jesus was arrested.  Even Peter, who
> swore up and down to Jesus the day before that he will never ever ever
> no matter what deny him... the very next day while he was hiding in
> the corner, denied him 3 times.  That doesn't look very good when your
> writing your biography.
>     iv) they all were tortured and flogged, and finally suffered death
> by some of the cruelest methods  then known.  All because they refused
> to recant that they had seen Jesus resurrected.  Others have died for
> a lie, but they knew it was a lie.  If the Jesus had never come back
> to life, then these men knew it.  And they all died for a lie they
> knew was a lie?  Why?

Again, these "objections" are based on the assumption that the
accounts are true. Given the fact that we are doubting Christianity,
we certainly do not accept that these accounts are true. What makes
you believe that they are?

>
>   c) All the "isms" have rules designed to keep it's followers in
> line.  Usually these threats are designed around losing your place in
> church, your salvation, or whatever that religion offers you as a
> "reward" for being it's follower.  The Bible states pretty clearly
> that you can't DO anything to earn it, therefore you can't DO anything
> to lose it.  Once it's yours, it's yours.  There's no threat from God
> (once your "saved") that you'll lose his favor... you have it once and
> for all.  We as humans do not like this.  We want to keep people
> morally responsible, and we want them to have dire consequences if
> they step out of line.  Again, this shows a human fingerprint, it's
> not something we would have come up with on our own.  The prodigal son
> for example, we read that story and often find it hard to believe that
> the father still wants him back. And even if we can accept that, the
> fact that there are NO consequences for his son, and the father even
> throws a party for him, and puts him back in his place of power??  The
> son himself even said he wasn't worthy, and only asked that his father
> let him be a servant.  Humans don't make that up.

It seems like they did. What is the basis for your claim that a human
couldn't have written the stories in the Bible?

>
>   d) If you look in the graves of all the leaders of all the
> religions, they're all still there... except one.  There is one thing
> man absolutely cannot do by himself, defeat death.  But Jesus did.

Well you can't say that unless you have personally verified all their
gravesites. I doubt you have. Also we don't know that Jesus rose from
the dead, do we?

>
>   e) If you look at all the "isms" that have some sort of manuscript
> or they're own "bible", it doesn't predict anything.  The bible has
> 8,000 predictions, and and half of those have already came true (in
> 3,268 verses, which yes is less than half, but some verses fulfill
> more than one prediction).  Many of the predictions were made in the
> old testament.  Predictions so obscure the mathematical likelihood of
> them coming true is truly insane (look it up if you want the number, I
> don't remember).  Then the New Testament, most (but not all) of the
> predictions were met, to the penny.  Again, the mathematical
> likelihood is insane.

Which means nothing. At the very MOST it only means those prophecies
were true, and nothing else. Just because I write a bunch of things on
a sheet of paper, and prove one of them, that doesn't magically make
all the other things true.

>
> Ok, I looked it up.  According to a man named Soner, who In 1944
> published his results in "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the
> Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible".  He said there were 300
> prophecies about the man Jesus alone.  He found that "the probability
> of one person fulfilling just eight of the specific prophecies was one
> chance in 1017 (one followed by 17 zeros). How about one person
> fulfilling just 48 of the over 300 prophecies? Stoner calculated these
> odds at one chance in 10157".  More over, "the American Scientific
> Affiliation gave Soner's work their stamp of approval".http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

Except we don't know that Jesus (if he actually existed) fullfilled
those prophecies, do we? Yes, it is written that he did, but why
should we take that for its word? If I looked up all those prophecies,
then wrote a book about me stating that I fullfilled them, would you
believe it?

>
> f) The bible was written over a span of 1500 years, in different
> locations spanning 3 continents, with over 40 different authors.   I
> have a friend who co-authors books, her last one had 3 authors.  3...
> and they can barely agree upon anything.  The bible had 40 who didn't
> even know each other... and the message in the entire bible stays the
> same throughout.   Other "isms" books were written by usually just one
> person who was "divinely inspired".  God knew that's not enough proof
> for us.  One person says they're divinely inspired, we don't believe.
> 40 of them, most of whom don't know each other, 1500 years, and
> they're all divinely inspired with the same message?

First, the Bible is riddled with contradictions and conflicting
messages which is certainly consistent with being written by different
people over different periods of time. Second, the Bible as you know
it is most likely one that was vetted through various Catholic
councils who decided, by committee, what books were to be canon and
what books were not to be canon. It is no surprise that the resulting
book would be most consistent than otherwise and in support of beliefs
they already held. Do you seriously think that such a committee would
have included stories that contradicted what they felt the message of
the Bible should be?

>
> g) the other leaders of the "isms" never claimed they were God.  Jesus
> did.

So?

>
> h) many of the other "isms" add to or take away stuff from the Bible.
> They either add their own books (like God forgot something the first
> time?) or they pick and choose parts of the bible to accept and not
> accept.   But, the bible says it is not to be added to or taken away
> from.  Like it or not, you have to take the whole picture and not add
> your own human things to it.  Since then, even Christians have
> continued to try to add their own stuff.  Why?  Because we don't like
> what it says.  Humans would not have written something so
> controversial, so against natural human reasoning.

Here's the problem with that. There are many verses warning us not to
add or subtract from scripture:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Deuteronomy 12:32
Proverbs 30:5-6
Revelation 22:18-19
Galatians 1:6-12

The problem is, if you TRULY adhered to that, you would not accept a
Bible that contains books written after the first time this message is
uttered (in this case, Deuteronomy). For some reason, you accept
scripture added after Deuteronomy, despite it telling us not to, you
accept scripture added after Proverns despite it telling us not to,
you accept scripture added after Galatians, despite it telling us not
to. But for some reason you won't accept scripture added after
Revelations.

Also, what is decided as canon was determined by a committee of humans
and they certainly did not include all the books that were written at
the time, so they subtracted. The Bible you use today violates its own
rules and so do you. It is written 5 times not to add to scripture,
yet you are using a book that violates all but one of those rules. Do
you have a reason why the first four times don't count, but the last
one does?

>
> i) Archeology hasn't ever been able to prove the bible wrong.  With a
> book with such crazy stuff in it, why can't we find any evidence
> against it?  But instead we continue to find  things that actually
> prove the bible right.  Skeptics keep coming up with stuff like "the
> bible talks about Hittites, but there's not other proof that they ever
> existed, therefore the bible must have made them up".  But wait a few
> years later... and what does archeology find?  Evidence for Hittites.
> Same with evidence for a man named Pontius Pilate (the man who allowed
> the jewish religious leaders to crucify Jesus.  Again, skeptics said
> there's no evidence outside the bible for that man.  But since then,
> archeology has found evidence, again more proof piling up on the side
> of the Bible's reliability.

Erm, things aren't accepted as true until proven otherwise. This is a
basic tenent in anything based upon logic. If I told you that you owed
me a million dollars unless you could prove otherwise, would you start
writing a check? Probably not. In any event, to build off of something
I said previously, the only things we can accept as true in the Bible
are those things that have evidence for them. Truth does not carry
over. Evidence for something relatively mundane (such as the existence
of Pontius Pilate) certainly does not constitute evidence for
something miraculous (such as evidence that there was a global flood).
Each claim or "fact" in the BIble must be independently verified.
Proving one does not do anything toward proving another.

Now, I am not sure about archeology, but other branches of science and
mathematics, such as cosmology, biology, zoology, evolution, geometry
all contradict the Bible.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 11, 12:16 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> Sub-Message:
>
> Differences Between Christianity and other religions (the "isms"):
>
> 1)   Christianity is simple.  A 7 year old can understand it.  There
> are no classes to get in, you can have more questions and still be
> "in".   You don't have to prove knowledge to any man before you can
> know God.  There is no test.

This statement is entirely not even wrong. I know, from deep
experience, that there are questions one *cannot* ask in Christian
circles. There are positions one *cannot* take in evangelical
Christian circles.

>
> 2)   Christianity is not a "blind" faith.  It encourages people to
> question, to explore.  "Seek and you will find me".  Go ahead, seek.
> It's okay.  Ask hard questions.  It's okay.  You'll eventually find
> him by seeking knowledge found all over in archeology, science and
> nature.  

Not even wrong. You will not find anything supporting your faith in
science read as science. Science does not support ANY religious
belief.

>Jesus is confident enough that we welcomes people to question
> him.  He also offers answers, unlike some other religions that simply
> state "well, we'll never know but it's the search that matters".

And herein lies another major problem with Christianity; it teaches an
inability to deal with "I don't know". There are questions that
Buddhism is utterly mute on. The origins of the Universe and life on
Earth are two that leap to mind. They are utterly irrelevant to the
question of the Dharma at any rate. However, Buddhism does not teach
people that they MUST have an answer.

> Christ says it is indeed possible to know.  Possible to find answers.

There are questions for which there are no satisfactory answers, Amy.
That's just the way the universe is.

>
> 3)  The "Isms" all have a fingerprint of man on them.

As does Christianity. Christianity does not, in any way, resemble a
non-human religion nor does the term 'non-human religion' make any
real sense at this stage of our exploration of the Universe. When we
encounter another sentient species that has religion, THEN we can say
what a non-human religion looks like.

>   a) If you look at their purpose, their beliefs, you can almost
> always tell what kind of a person started that religion, without even
> studying the history.

Entirely not even wrong. But please, thrill us with your elucidation
and tell us everything you can discern about Gautama based upon your
understanding of Buddhism.

 Ex:  in Islam, the only way you can know for
> sure that you will go to heaven is by dying in a holy war.

Again, not even wrong. I would suggest that you should probably read
the Koran AND some good books on the religion. I would suggest that
you start with Karen Armstrong's work on the major monotheistic
religions.

> And... if
> you do die in a holy war, you not only get a golden ticket to
> guaranteed heaven, but you get numerous virgin women there waiting for
> you!  (I've heard 23, I've heard 86, the exact number doesn't matter
> much for this argument).

The number is 72 and 'virgin' is actually a mistranslation.

> Tell me that was not contrived by a
> political male.  Any isms I've looked into, I can usually tell who
> probably contrived it.

Please tell us who 'contrived' Hinduism then.

> But I can't in Christianity.  There's no
> levels of achievement.  There's no people or people group at the top.

Priests and preachers not-with-standing. Nineteen hundred years of
enthusiastic support for slavery not-with-standing. Two-thousand
years of enthusiastic support for the oppression of women not-with-
standing.

> In fact, it puts down those in high places, and brings up people in
> low places.

There are millions of dead Native Americans who, if they could speak,
would probably have something to say about that subject. There
certainly are millions of dead Africans who would have quite a bit to
say about that.

> It makes everyone equal.

See above.

> If one group of people
> contrived this whole thing, it's very likely they would have inserted
> something that made their group look good.

Again, not even wrong. Not only is this inaccurate historically it is
inaccurate in current practice.

>   b) That person who started it is almost always, from what I've seen,
> painted in a great picture, without flaw.

Again, not even wrong. There are NO--NONE--ZIP--NADA pictures of the
Mohamed. In point of fact, portraying the prophet is *forbidden* in
Islam. Btw. have you EVER seen a picture of Jesus? I'm almost
certain you have. Not only is the picture inaccurate (Jesus, had he
existed, would have looked a like more like Nizam the Palestinian at
the corner store than Sven the Swede) but he is portrayed as being
without blemish.

>  And the beliefs usually are
> quite convenient for the person who started it.

Please provide precise examples because your saying that this is so
for other religions but not Christianity does not make it accurate.

>   c) All the "isms" have rules designed to keep it's followers in
> line.  Usually these threats are designed around losing your place in
> church, your salvation, or whatever that religion offers you as a
> "reward" for being it's follower.

Please provide concrete examples from Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism.
Thank you.

>   d) If you look in the graves of all the leaders of all the
> religions, they're all still there... except one.  There is one thing
> man absolutely cannot do by himself, defeat death.  But Jesus did.

Ummm, again, not even wrong. You can search for the grave of the
Buddha but you won't find it because his body was cremated. Mohamed is
buried in Medina. You cannot find the grave of Abraham or Moses
either. No one knows where Lao Tzu died. The body of Confucius is
interred in his home town. Even if your statement *were* correct it
would actually argue *against* Jesus having been a real person since
most real people leave behind a body. Your statement is only
convincing to someone who has *already* accepted that the basic
premises of Christianity are correct and there is no compelling reason
to accept this.

>
> Ok, I looked it up.  According to a man named Soner, who In 1944
> published his results in "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the
> Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible".  He said there were 300
> prophecies about the man Jesus alone.  He found that "the probability
> of one person fulfilling just eight of the specific prophecies was one
> chance in 1017 (one followed by 17 zeros). How about one person
> fulfilling just 48 of the over 300 prophecies? Stoner calculated these
> odds at one chance in 10157".  More over, "the American Scientific
> Affiliation gave Soner's work their stamp of approval".http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

The American Scientific Affiliation is an organization of Christian
scientists. It should NOT be mistaken, as you or someone else clearly
wishes, for the National Academy of Sciences which is the premier
scientific organization in America. The ASA gave its stamp of
approval because Stoner's work agreed with their pre-existing
sectarian beliefs.

>
> f) The bible was written over a span of 1500 years, in different
> locations spanning 3 continents, with over 40 different authors.   I
> have a friend who co-authors books, her last one had 3 authors.  3...
> and they can barely agree upon anything.

Umm, the Bible contradicts itself all over the place. I will leave it
to your own research abilities to find out where but here's a good
start. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not agree with one another.

 The bible had 40 who didn't
> even know each other... and the message in the entire bible stays the
> same throughout.

No, it doesn't. Again, I would suggest you read Armstrong.

> Other "isms" books were written by usually just one
> person who was "divinely inspired".

Ummm, again, not even wrong. Please tell us everything you know about
the Vedas because your making this statement very strongly suggest
that you know next-to-nothing about them.

>
> g) the other leaders of the "isms" never claimed they were God.  Jesus
> did.

This actually demonstrates nothing at all.

>
> h) many of the other "isms" add to or take away stuff from the Bible.

Please find in the Tao te Ching or the Vedas or Upanishads *anything*
that mentions the Bible and takes away from it.

> They either add their own books (like God forgot something the first
> time?) or they pick and choose parts of the bible to accept and not
> accept.

You appear to be talking as if all 'religions' were some variant on
Christianity. They aren't and your statements show a stunning lack of
knowledge about other world religious systems, particularly for
someone who claims to have studied them.

>
> i) Archeology hasn't ever been able to prove the bible wrong.  With a

> book with such crazy stuff in it, why ...

Again, not even wrong. You have obviously not read much in the way of
archaeology. Just as a start. There are NO records of the Jews
*ever* being in Egypt from the Egyptians *own* writings. None. Zip.
Bupkis. There's no independent correlation of the Jewish Exodus. The
dating that Christians use for King Herod's census is wrong. The
Romans do not mention Jesus what-so-ever. I could go on and on.

Cheers
DGG

[amyluv]

>
> I appreciate your attempts to have your statements have a minimally
> tangential connection to reality. :)

Hey.. I'm here to help! ;-)

> You are taking this story out of context. The story is about an
> internecine struggle within Judaism and without that understanding the
> story does not make ANY sense what-so-ever.

First of all, I had to look up internecine in the dictionary and it
had 2 meanings... so if you think I don't have a good grasp of it
please clarify. Remember people... no *big words* for Amy (said in my
best cyber Chris Farley impression I can muster).

Second of all, I have read the whole story and don't think I'm taking
it out of context. I also don't totally disagree that it's "an
internecine struggle within Judaism". But what does that change about
Jesus not approving of the Pharisees and calling them names? Could
you clarify more about the context, as you read it to be?

An internecine struggle, as I read it... a struggle within or a
struggle to the death. The Jews chose to not accept Jesus for who he
said he was, the "messiah". The struggle within Judaism at that time
was that this man was saying he's the messiah and people are believing
him. Their reaction... 'Quick, lets get him out of the picture or our
seats in high places are in danger'. So yes, it was a struggle to the
death. {side note: they did kill him, but I think Jesus got the last
laugh as he rose from the dead and all}.

> As a matter of fact, that is a *very* accurate description. One need
> only witness American Protestantism's problem with homosexuals. You
> can be anything you want within Protestant circles *except*
> homosexual.

When one group of people choose to "take up arms" so to speak against
one certain people group, that just pisses me off. Yes, the bible
says it's not right to be gay. But it also says it's not right to
have sex outside of marriage. It also says not to hate anyone, not to
have affairs, not to steal, not to be greedy, etc.

Just because one group of imperfect people takes up arms against only
one thing the bible says, doesn't mean you should be against the bible
as a whole, and as hard as it is to find, it doesn't mean all
Christians are like that. And, not all churches are like that. My
"home" church for example, non-denominational, has had several
homosexuals visit us at different times. I'm kinda proud to say the
congregation as a whole welcomed them in. Everyone's a sinner, so
what difference is it whether you're gay or fat (glutonous) or a
smoker (lack of self control). Now, if those gay people choose to
stick around (the church is quite big and I don't know if they stayed
or not), they're welcome whether or not they "convert". Same thing
with people having sex outside marrigae. The bible says that's not
right too, so are churches supposed to kick people out if they say
they're a christian yet they're still having sex outside marriage?
If churches were only for perfect people, there'd be nobody there.

BTW, if anyone sees a collection of people holding up signs that say
"God hates Gay People", please let me know. It's my lifelong dream to
go stand on the other side of the street with an ever bigger sign that
says "God hates people who hold up signs that say he hates gay
people".

> I could say the very same thing about Protestants. Most Protestants
> couldn't give you the cultural context out of which their religion
> grew if their lives depended upon it.

Yep, we agree on something! This is exactly what I'm saying too. All
that I'm adding is don't totally write off the bible and it's
reliablility because humans have gotten it very wrong. We can sit
here for pages and agree on all the areas where Christians have gotten
it wrong. Pages and pages because there are just so many great
examples! (yes, that was sarcastic). And, we can even go back to
the bible and show where it shows in there what they did is very
wrong, and why. So go ahead, be against religion. Be against (insert
name of Prodestant denomination here) all day long. Just be careful
when you judge God based soley upon his flawed followers.

I know...I know... now the gloves come off. Calm down... take a
breath. "Well what are we supposed to judge him by then?". That's
just it. You have to judge him and the evidence he left for you to
look at yourself. If you just hear what some man says (i.e. a
prodestant pastor), and then shut the whole thing off because you
believe that to be what the bible says without looking at it yourself
(IN context)... I'd say that's not any better than those who say they
are Christians but have no idea why.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 11, 2:08 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:

> BTW, if anyone sees a collection of people holding up signs that say
> "God hates Gay People", please let me know.  It's my lifelong dream to
> go stand on the other side of the street with an ever bigger sign that
> says "God hates people who hold up signs that say he hates gay
> people".

Come to Portland, next Father's Day for Gay Pride, they'll be there.
Or go to SF the weekend following and they'll be there. If you live
near a city with a large gay pride celebration, I guarantee you that
they'll be there.

Cheers
DGG

[Brock]

On Jul 11, 3:03 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> While the Pharisees were busy washing their outside, they allowed
> pride and arrogance to fester in their hearts. While they measured out
> exactly 10 percent, they ignored the needy people they could easily
> have provided for. And while they were careful to follow any number of
> hundreds of little laws, they forgot the greatest command of God. "You
> must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and
> all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5, NLT).  The Pharisees were ALL
> about religion, but had no relationship.

Stated very well, amyluv. :)

> The only way to enter into heaven is to know Jesus and to have a
> relationship with Him.  You can't possible catch that by just going
> through the motions.  Christ isn't about "doing".  He's about
> "being".

You've made a great point. :)

Regards,

Brock

[amyluv]

On Jul 11, 12:53 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 3:16 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
>
> > Sub-Message:
>
> > Differences Between Christianity and other religions (the "isms"):
>
> > 1)   Christianity is simple.  A 7 year old can understand it.  There
> > are no classes to get in, you can have more questions and still be
> > "in".   You don't have to prove knowledge to any man before you can
> > know God.  There is no test.
>
> A 7 year old can understand that Santa brings him presents and the
> tooth fairy buys his teeth (yes, 7 may be a little old for this but
> the beliefs of a 7-year old should not be compelling). I'm not sure
> what the signficance of this is. Should we put stock into what a child
> can and cannot believe?

Not at all. Just making the point that the whole salvation plan in
itself is pretty uncomplicated. It's not easy by any means, but
simple to understand. Not simple to accept, but simple to understand.
So simple in fact, we like to make other stuff up to go along with
it. And so simple, that we don't really believe it because it sounds
so simple.

I'm not saying there's not a whole lot more to learn about
Christianity, but when you ask the question "what do you do to be
saved" for any religion... usually there's a complicated or incomplete
answer that a 7 year old would not be able to understand.

Um, I don't see how these verses prove your point. You said the bible
requires you to believe without proof. Then you give the story of
Thomas, who wanted proof, and Jesus gave it to him.

Then the John 20 verse says that not everything that happened is
written down, but the things that are written down are done so that
you may have proof.

Of course, neither of these are proof without proof the biblical
records are reliable, so I guess that'll be my next thread.

>
>
> > 3)  The "Isms" all have a fingerprint of man on them.
> >   a) If you look at their purpose, their beliefs, you can almost
> > always tell what kind of a person started that religion, without even
> > studying the history.  Ex:  in Islam, the only way you can know for
> > sure that you will go to heaven is by dying in a holy war.  And... if
> > you do die in a holy war, you not only get a golden ticket to
> > guaranteed heaven, but you get numerous virgin women there waiting for
> > you!  (I've heard 23, I've heard 86, the exact number doesn't matter
> > much for this argument).  Tell me that was not contrived by a
> > political male.  Any isms I've looked into, I can usually tell who
> > probably contrived it.  But I can't in Christianity.  There's no
> > levels of achievement.  There's no people or people group at the top.
> > In fact, it puts down those in high places, and brings up people in
> > low places.  It makes everyone equal.  If one group of people
> > contrived this whole thing, it's very likely they would have inserted
> > something that made their group look good.  Most other religions have
> > this.  Instead, Jesus says everyone's equal, and that there is nobody
> > better than anyone else. He flips society on it's backside, saying the
> > lowest is now the highest, and vice versa.
>
> I see nothing unique about Christianity in this regard. It has all the
> markings of a man-made religion to me.

Imperfect man has absolutely in many denominations and many a church
made Christianity out to look like other religions in this regard.
However, the bible does not.

Saving the best examples for last of course!

>
>
> > Continuing on with this one, because it's of vital importance.  You
> > can say the people who did write it were Jesus' disciples and their
> > followers.  But look at the stories of the disciples for a second.
> >      i) they all came from "less than" backgrounds.  Anyone looking to
> > start a religion usually picks someone respected and reputable to be
> > their cohorts.  You don't pick people that others look down upon.
>
> Really? What is the basis for this?

Because the people of the day aren't going to believe and follow you
if your group is a bunch of dimwits. If your intent is to start a
religion, your going to need followers. It's more likely to get
followers if you pick people who have good standing in the community,
who are respected, and who don't stink like fish.

>
> >      ii) they all questioned Jesus, all the time.  They just didn't
> > get it.  They followed him because they saw something very different,
> > but they were constantly questioning why the heck he was doing what he
> > was doing?  If they were writing out of hindsight, (or telling others
> > who wrote it, like Luke) the tendency is to "forget" about the part
> > that makes you look stupid.
>
> If, and only if, we accept the gospel accounts as true. We don't know
> that events happen as they are depicted.

Again, I think we have to take a gander at the reliability of the
bible. But lets assume for a second it is true, then you agree?

>
> >     iii) they all ran away when Jesus was arrested.  Even Peter, who
> > swore up and down to Jesus the day before that he will never ever ever
> > no matter what deny him... the very next day while he was hiding in
> > the corner, denied him 3 times.  That doesn't look very good when your
> > writing your biography.
> >     iv) they all were tortured and flogged, and finally suffered death
> > by some of the cruelest methods  then known.  All because they refused
> > to recant that they had seen Jesus resurrected.  Others have died for
> > a lie, but they knew it was a lie.  If the Jesus had never come back
> > to life, then these men knew it.  And they all died for a lie they
> > knew was a lie?  Why?
>
> Again, these "objections" are based on the assumption that the
> accounts are true. Given the fact that we are doubting Christianity,
> we certainly do not accept that these accounts are true. What makes
> you believe that they are?

There are historical sources other than the bible that match what the
bible says. I'm not sure, but I don't think the bible even talks
about how these men died, which of course, was the original point (Who
would die for a lie?). Allow me to quote Josh McDowel, who puts it
better than I would. (From More Than A Carpenter, Chapter 6, "Who
Would Die For A Lie").

"Those who challenge Christianity often overlook one area of evidence;
the transformation of Jesus' apostles. The radically changed lives of
these men give us solid testimony for the validly of Christ's claims.
Since the Christian faith is historical, our knowledge of it must rely
heavily on testimony, both written and oral. Without such testimony,
we have no window to any historical event, Christian or otherwise. In
fact, all history is essentially a knowledge of the past based on
testimony. If reliance on such testimony seems to give history too
shaky a foundation, we must ask, How else can we learn of the past?
How can we know that Napoleon lived? None of us was alive in his time
period. We didn't see him or meet him. We must rely on testimony."

"Our knowledge of history has one inherent problem: Can we trust that
the testimony is reliable? Since our knowledge of Christianity is
based on testimony given in the distant past, we must ask whether we
can depend on its accuracy. Were the original oral testimonies about
Jesus trustworthy? Can we trust them to have conveyed correctly what
Jesus said and did? I believe we can."

"I can trust the apostles' testimonies becuase eleven of those men
died martyrs' deaths because they stood solid for two truths: Christ's
deity [that he was God] and his resurrection. These men were tortured
and flogged, and they finally suffered death by some of the cruelest
methods then known."

McDowel then has a reference, that when looked up at the back of the
book says simply "Although the New Testament does not record the
deaths of these men, historical sources and longstanding tradition
confirm the nature of their deaths."

Back to the list:

1) Peter, originally called Simon, was crucified.
2) Andrew was crucified.
3) James, son of Zebedee, was killed by the sword.
4) John, son of Zebedee, died a natural death.
5) Phillip was crucified
6) Bartholomew was crucified.
7) Thomas was killed by a spear
8) Matthew was killed by the sword
9) James, son of Alphaeus, was crucified
10) Thaddaeus was killed by arrows
11) Simon, the zealot, was crucified.

Then he goes on to explain like I did (well, I copied him) that people
in history have died for religion and died for a lie, but those people
were convinced it was the truth. These were the 11 men that out of
anyone in history, they DEFINATELY knew if Jesus rose from the dead or
not. They were the ones that saw the miracles before and after. They
walked around with Jesus and lived with the guy, hung on his every
word (even though they were usually a bit confused until hindsight set
in). If Jesus was a fraud, they would have known it.

And you can't say that because you don't believe the bible, that you
don't believe these men did in fact die and for the reason that they
were not willing to recant the claims they were making. That
information is recorded in historical sources other than the
bible.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Amy:

By that measure Buddhism is ridiculously simple. Here is the core of
Buddhism.

1> In life there is suffering. (Birth is painful, illness is painful,
old age is painful, death is painful)
2> The cause of our suffering is that we want what we do not have, we
fear losing that which we do have and we are jealous of what others
have.
3> By becoming free of desires we can free ourselves from suffering
4> By following the Eight-fold Noble path we can achieve a reduction
in suffering

The Eight-fold path is:

Right Thought -- Understand reality and accept that reality is what it
is.
Right Speech -- Do not lie, use kind words
Right Action -- Do no harm
Right Livelihood -- Do not earn money in ways that harm others
Right Effort -- Knowing what happens in our own minds, make the best
effort one can to do as little harm to others and self.
Right Mindfulness -- Meditate and become aware of the ways that we
create our own suffering
Right Concentration -- Pick yourself up when you fall short and
continue on

Simple, a seven-year old could understand it. There's no heaven or
hell to seek or avoid. The focus is to reduce the suffering of others
and one self. Why bother? Because it is worthwhile in itself to
cause as little harm as possible.

Cheers
DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Jul 11, 8:29 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 12:53 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 3:16 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sub-Message:
>
> > > Differences Between Christianity and other religions (the "isms"):
>
> > > 1) Christianity is simple. A 7 year old can understand it. There
> > > are no classes to get in, you can have more questions and still be
> > > "in". You don't have to prove knowledge to any man before you can
> > > know God. There is no test.
>
> > A 7 year old can understand that Santa brings him presents and the
> > tooth fairy buys his teeth (yes, 7 may be a little old for this but
> > the beliefs of a 7-year old should not be compelling). I'm not sure
> > what the signficance of this is. Should we put stock into what a child
> > can and cannot believe?
>
> Not at all. Just making the point that the whole salvation plan in
> itself is pretty uncomplicated. It's not easy by any means, but
> simple to understand. Not simple to accept, but simple to understand.
> So simple in fact, we like to make other stuff up to go along with
> it. And so simple, that we don't really believe it because it sounds
> so simple.
>
> I'm not saying there's not a whole lot more to learn about
> Christianity, but when you ask the question "what do you do to be
> saved" for any religion... usually there's a complicated or incomplete
> answer that a 7 year old would not be able to understand.

I don't think it's that simple at all, I actually think it's pretty
convoluted. How exactly would you explain the need for salvation to a
7 year old?

I wasn't trying to prove a point, I was disproving yours. You claimed
that the Bible doesn't say we need to believe without proof:

"Therefore, we're not told to just believe what it says with no

proof". That is clearly a false statement.

It most certainly does. Aside from the details (names, places, etc)
there is nothing remarkable that distinguishes the Bible from the
Illiad or Epic of Gilgamesh.

That certainly isn't true. Take a look at all the cults that have
formed. They died for their leaders and these were perhaps the most
shady people on the planet. To top it off, you have Scientology,
formed by a guy who is on record for saying that the best way to make
money is by forming a religion! That doesn't seem to have stopped
anyone.

>
>
>
> > > ii) they all questioned Jesus, all the time. They just didn't
> > > get it. They followed him because they saw something very different,
> > > but they were constantly questioning why the heck he was doing what he
> > > was doing? If they were writing out of hindsight, (or telling others
> > > who wrote it, like Luke) the tendency is to "forget" about the part
> > > that makes you look stupid.
>
> > If, and only if, we accept the gospel accounts as true. We don't know
> > that events happen as they are depicted.
>
> Again, I think we have to take a gander at the reliability of the
> bible. But lets assume for a second it is true, then you agree?

Nope.

This is a common argument made by Christians, that either Christianity
is true, or the apostles were lying. Since lying people don't die for
lies, and the apostles died, then they couldn't have been lying, ergo
Christianity is true. I will address this in another thread.

[Dag Yo]

> How exactly would you explain the need for salvation to a
> 7 year old?

I'll give this a shot. [pretend i'm talking to a 7-year-old]

People need salvation because a long time ago God made a neat little
garden for people and animals to live in. There was also a magic tree
in this garden, with a fruit that makes anyone who eats it really
smart, but God said that it was agains the rules to eat anything from
that tree. One day your Great^n Grandma got talked into eating some
magic fruit by a walking talking snake. So your grandma ate the fruit
and got all smart, but then when God found out God was really mad and
after that he hated all the people in the world -- he even hated
babies because they came from their smart grandparents. God hates
everyone so much that the people he really hates, he hurts really
really bad forever. In fact, God even hates you.

But after a few thousand years, God decided it was kinda mean of him
to hurt everyone really bad forever just because he hates them so
much. So he decided he would get a woman pregnant so he could have a
baby of his own. That baby was named Jesus. And then when that baby
grew up God and Jesus made sure that Jesus got hurt really bad for a
few days. And so, God doesn't hate anyone who remembers that Jesus
got hurt for a few days.

So don't ever forget that Jesus got hurt, or God will want to hurt you
forever and ever, thanks to your stupid Grandma

> ...
>
> read more »

[Belly Bionic]

If that's the case, then were the men who flew the planes into the
Twin Towers right? They died a martyr's death according to Islam. So
Islam must be true, because they wouldn't have died for a lie, right?

Joseph Smith was gunned down in cold blood by a mob of men who wanted
to destroy the LDS church. That's a martyr's death if ever there was
one. So Mormonism is right, because he died a martyr's death.
Right? He was murdered because he refused to recant and stop
preaching that the Book of Mormon was the word of God. His brother,
Hyrum, was also murdered at the same time. Surely he wouldn't have
died for a lie? So will you be converting to Mormonism?

If martyrs are evidence of truth, then why believe the Bible and not
any of the other religions with their dozens upon dozens of martyrs?

[amyluv]

> > > > 3)  The "Isms" all have a fingerprint of man on them.
> > > >   a) If you look at their purpose, their beliefs, you can almost
> > > > always tell what kind of a person started that religion, without even
> > > > studying the history.  Ex:  in Islam, the only way you can know for
> > > > sure that you will go to heaven is by dying in a holy war.  And... if
> > > > you do die in a holy war, you not only get a golden ticket to
> > > > guaranteed heaven, but you get numerous virgin women there waiting for
> > > > you!  (I've heard 23, I've heard 86, the exact number doesn't matter
> > > > much for this argument).  Tell me that was not contrived by a
> > > > political male.  Any isms I've looked into, I can usually tell who
> > > > probably contrived it.  But I can't in Christianity.  There's no
> > > > levels of achievement.  There's no people or people group at the top.
> > > > In fact, it puts down those in high places, and brings up people in
> > > > low places.  It makes everyone equal.  If one group of people
> > > > contrived this whole thing, it's very likely they would have inserted
> > > > something that made their group look good.  Most other religions have
> > > > this.  Instead, Jesus says everyone's equal, and that there is nobody
> > > > better than anyone else. He flips society on it's backside, saying the
> > > > lowest is now the highest, and vice versa.
>
> > > I see nothing unique about Christianity in this regard. It has all the
> > > markings of a man-made religion to me.

So, what type of person or group do you think made up Christianity?

the argument was that in Christianity, there is no people group put
up at the "top".

>
> > Imperfect man has absolutely in many denominations and many a church
> > made Christianity out to look like other religions in this regard.
> > However, the bible does not.
>
> It most certainly does. Aside from the details (names, places, etc)
> there is nothing remarkable that distinguishes the Bible from the
> Illiad or Epic of Gilgamesh.

The argument was about whether or not the bible places a certain
people group at the top of it's "preferred" list. You disagreed, so
therefore in your opinion... what are the types of people groups the
Bible places above everyone else?

Also, Illiad and Epic of Gilgamesh didn't claim to be anything other
than works of literature. The bible on the other hand, claims to be
the spoken word of the God who created the universe. That's a bit of
a distinction, no matter if you choose to believe in it or not, it
sets itself apart from any other book just by that one fact.

[amyluv]

I believe the men who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers did
honestly believe in their religion. Therefore, it wasn't dying for a
lie that they knew was a lie.

Joseph Smith, I honestly don't know enough to comment on. However, I
will not be converting to mormonism for the simple reason I see no
reasonable proof to believe their claims.

Think of a court case. To make a case for or against something, you
collect evidence. You try to collect evidence from as many different
sources as possible. Eye witnesses, receipts, phone records, etc. The
simple fact that 11 eye-witnesses died for their claims does not in
itself prove anything at all, but it adds a huge weight to the
credibility of their message.

And on that note, many a court case has been won or lost by fewer, and
less credible eye-witnesses than 11 who were willing to face death
rather than change their story. Plus, these 11 eye-witnesses are not
the only evidence that's been presented.

[amyluv]

On Jul 11, 8:48 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How exactly would you explain the need for salvation to a
> > 7 year old?
>
> I'll give this a shot.  [pretend i'm talking to a 7-year-old]
>
> People need salvation because a long time ago God made a neat little
> garden for people and animals to live in.  There was also a magic tree
> in this garden, with a fruit that makes anyone who eats it really
> smart, but God said that it was agains the rules to eat anything from
> that tree.  One day your Great^n Grandma got talked into eating some
> magic fruit by a walking talking snake.  So your grandma ate the fruit
> and got all smart, but then when God found out God was really mad and
> after that he hated all the people in the world -- he even hated
> babies because they came from their smart grandparents.  God hates
> everyone so much that the people he really hates, he hurts really
> really bad forever.  In fact, God even hates you.
>
> But after a few thousand years, God decided it was kinda mean of him
> to hurt everyone really bad forever just because he hates them so
> much.  So he decided he would get a woman pregnant so he could have a
> baby of his own.  That baby was named Jesus.  And then when that baby
> grew up God and Jesus made sure that Jesus got hurt really bad for a
> few days.  And so, God doesn't hate anyone who remembers that Jesus
> got hurt for a few days.
>
> So don't ever forget that Jesus got hurt, or God will want to hurt you
> forever and ever, thanks to your stupid Grandma
>

LOL!

[Drafterman]

The pope would disagree.

>
>
>
> > > Imperfect man has absolutely in many denominations and many a church
> > > made Christianity out to look like other religions in this regard.
> > > However, the bible does not.
>
> > It most certainly does. Aside from the details (names, places, etc)
> > there is nothing remarkable that distinguishes the Bible from the
> > Illiad or Epic of Gilgamesh.
>
> The argument was about whether or not the bible places a certain
> people group at the top of it's "preferred" list.  You disagreed, so
> therefore in your opinion...  what are the types of people groups the
> Bible places above everyone else?

The Jews, at first. God gives them a lot of leeway and infact commands
them to commit genocide on people unwittingly living in their
"promised land". I guess they figured that this wasn't a good PR
tactic and decided to offer salvation to everyone. Even then, the
Bible places believers over non-believers. The Catholic church, among
others, as had no problem using the Bible to justify their heirarchy.

>
> Also, Illiad and Epic of Gilgamesh didn't claim to be anything other
> than works of literature.  The bible on the other hand, claims to be
> the spoken word of the God who created the universe.  That's a bit of
> a distinction, no matter if you choose to believe in it or not, it
> sets itself apart from any other book just by that one fact.

I don't see that as significant. Unless you're saying that I can just
insert "This is a work of God" and expect you to treat it as divine.
Exactly what magical properties does the Bible possess that makes
everything written in it automatically true, despite the fact that if
it was written in another book, you'd reject it?

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

LMAO! That story is beautiful. You've got to let me publish it to my New Atheism blog Dag.

May I?

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:48 AM, amyluv <awr...@usccard.com> wrote:

> > > > 3)  The "Isms" all have a fingerprint of man on them.
> > > >   a) If you look at their purpose, their beliefs, you can almost
> > > > always tell what kind of a person started that religion, without even
> > > > studying the history.  Ex:  in Islam, the only way you can know for
> > > > sure that you will go to heaven is by dying in a holy war.  And... if
> > > > you do die in a holy war, you not only get a golden ticket to
> > > > guaranteed heaven, but you get numerous virgin women there waiting for
> > > > you!  (I've heard 23, I've heard 86, the exact number doesn't matter
> > > > much for this argument).  Tell me that was not contrived by a
> > > > political male.  Any isms I've looked into, I can usually tell who
> > > > probably contrived it.  But I can't in Christianity.  There's no
> > > > levels of achievement.  There's no people or people group at the top.
> > > > In fact, it puts down those in high places, and brings up people in
> > > > low places.  It makes everyone equal.  If one group of people
> > > > contrived this whole thing, it's very likely they would have inserted
> > > > something that made their group look good.  Most other religions have
> > > > this.  Instead, Jesus says everyone's equal, and that there is nobody
> > > > better than anyone else. He flips society on it's backside, saying the
> > > > lowest is now the highest, and vice versa.
>
> > > I see nothing unique about Christianity in this regard. It has all the
> > > markings of a man-made religion to me.

So, what type of person or group do you think made up Christianity?

As per Acts, it was essentially a small somewhat sectarian cult which practiced communalism, originally.

 

 the argument was that in Christianity, there is no people group put
up at the "top".

>
> > Imperfect man has absolutely in many denominations and many a church
> > made Christianity out to look like other religions in this regard.
> > However, the bible does not.
>
> It most certainly does. Aside from the details (names, places, etc)
> there is nothing remarkable that distinguishes the Bible from the
> Illiad or Epic of Gilgamesh.

The argument was about whether or not the bible places a certain
people group at the top of it's "preferred" list.  You disagreed, so
therefore in your opinion...  what are the types of people groups the
Bible places above everyone else?

Also, Illiad and Epic of Gilgamesh didn't claim to be anything other
than works of literature.  The bible on the other hand, claims to be
the spoken word of the God who created the universe.  That's a bit of
a distinction, no matter if you choose to believe in it or not, it
sets itself apart from any other book just by that one fact.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> How exactly would you explain the need for salvation to a
>> 7 year old?
> I'll give this a shot. [pretend i'm talking to a 7-year-old]
>
> People need salvation because a long time ago God made a neat little
> garden for people and animals to live in. There was also a magic tree
> in this garden, with a fruit that makes anyone who eats it really
> smart, but God said that it was agains the rules to eat anything from
> that tree. One day your Great^n Grandma got talked into eating some
> magic fruit by a walking talking snake. So your grandma ate the fruit
> and got all smart, but then when God found out God was really mad and
> after that he hated all the people in the world -- he even hated
> babies because they came from their smart grandparents. God hates
> everyone so much that the people he really hates, he hurts really
> really bad forever. In fact, God even hates you.

Talking to a 7 year old means that you communicate with them on their
level, not lie to them. :)

Many children were raised using the Bible as source and reference
material, for example, The New England Primer[1] often included such
wonderful works as the Westminster Shorter Catechism. :)

Of course, there is a catechism for children, and I think it
summarizes quite a few issues well:

"CATECHISM FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
An Introduction to the Shorter Catechism

Q. 1. Who made you?
A. God.

Q. 2. What else did God make?
A. God made all things.

Q. 3. Why did God make you and all things ?
A. For his own glory.

Q. 4. How can you glorify God?
A. By loving him and doing what he commands.

Q. 5. Why ought you to glorify God?
A. Because he made me and takes care of me.

Q. 6. Are there more gods than one?
A. There is only one God.

Q. 7. In how many persons does this one God exist?
A. In three persons.

Q. 8. What are they?
A. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Q. 9. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, and has not a body like men.

Q. 10. Where is God?
A. God is everywhere.

Q. 11. Can you see God?
A. No; I cannot see God, but he always sees me.

Q. 12. Does God know all things?
A. Yes; nothing can be hid from God.

Q. 13. Can God do all things?
A. Yes; God can do all his holy will.

Q. 14. Where do you learn how to love and obey God?
A. In the Bible alone.

Q. 15. Who wrote the Bible?
A. Holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit.

Q. 16. Who were our first parents?
A. Adam and Eve.

Q. 17. Of what were our first parents made?
A. God made the body of Adam out of the ground, and formed Eve
from the body of Adam.

Q. 18. What did God give Adam and Eve besides bodies?
A. He gave them souls that could never die.

Q. 19. Have you a soul as well as a body?
A. Yes; I have a soul that can never die.

Q. 20. How do you know that you have a soul?
A. Because the Bible tells me so.

Q. 21. In what condition did God make Adam and Eve?
A. He made them holy and happy.

Q. 22. What is a covenant?
A. An agreement between two or more persons.

Q. 23. What covenant did God make with Adam?
A. The covenant of works.

Q. 24. What was Adam bound to do by the covenant of works?
A. To obey God perfectly.

Q. 25. What did God promise in the covenant of works?
A. To reward Adam with life if he obeyed him.

Q. 26. What did God threaten in the covenant of works?
A. To punish Adam with death if he disobeyed.

Q. 27. Did Adam keep the covenant of works?
A. No; he sinned against God.

Q. 28. What is Sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God.

Q. 29. What is meant by want of conformity?
A. Not being or doing what God requires.

Q. 30. What is meant by transgression?
A. Doing what God forbids.

Q. 31. What was the sin of our first parents?
A. Eating the forbidden fruit.

Q. 32. Who tempted them to this sin?
A. The devil tempted Eve, and she gave the fruit to Adam.

Q. 33. What befell our first parents when they had sinned?
A. Instead of being holy and happy, they became sinful and miserable.

Q. 34. Did Adam act for himself alone in the covenant of works?
A. No; he represented all his posterity.

Q. 35. What effect had the sin of Adam on all mankind?
A. All mankind are born in a state of sin and misery.

Q. 36. What is that sinful nature which we inherit from Adam called?
A. Original sin.

Q. 37. What does every sin deserve?
A. The wrath and curse of God.

Q. 38. Can any one go to heaven with this sinful nature?
A. No; our hearts must be changed before we can be fit for heaven.

Q. 39. What is a change of heart called?
A. Regeneration.

Q. 40. Who can change a sinner's heart?
A. The Holy Spirit alone.

Q. 41. Can any one be saved through the covenant of works?
A. None can be saved through the covenant of works.

Q. 42. Why can none be saved through the covenant of works?
A. Because all have broken it, and are condemned by it

Q. 43. With whom did God the Father make the covenant of grace?
A. With Christ, his eternal Son.

Q. 44. Whom did Christ represent in the covenant of grace?
A. His elect people.

Q. 45. What did Christ undertake in the covenant of grace?
A. To keep the whole law for his people, and to suffer the
punishment due to their sins.

Q. 46. Did our Lord Jesus Christ ever commit the least sin?
A. No; he was holy, harmless, and undefiled.

Q. 47. How could the Son of God suffer?
A. Christ, the Son of God, became man that he might obey and
suffer in our nature.

Q. 48. What is meant by the Atonement?
A. Christ's satisfying divine justice, by his sufferings and
death, in the place of sinners.

Q. 49. What did God the Father undertake in the covenant of grace?
A. To justify and sanctify those for whom Christ should die.

Q. 50. What is justification?
A. It is God's forgiving sinners, and treating them as if they had
never sinned.

Q. 51. What is sanctification?
A. It is God's making sinners holy in heart and conduct.

Q. 52. For whom did Christ obey and suffer?
A. For those whom the Father had given him.

Q. 53. What kind of life did Christ live on earth?
A. A life of poverty and suffering.

Q. 54. What kind of death did Christ die?
A. The painful and shameful death of the cross.

Q. 55. Who will be saved?
A. Only those who repent of sin, believe in Christ, and lead holy lives.

Q. 56. What is it to repent?
A. To be sorry for sin, and to hate and forsake it because it is
displeasing to God.

Q. 57. What is it to believe or have faith in Christ?
A. To trust in Christ alone for salvation.

Q. 58. Can you repent and believe in Christ by your own power?
A. No; I can do nothing good without the help of God's Holy Spirit.

Q. 59. How can you get the help of the Holy Spirit?
A. God has told us that we must pray to him for the Holy Spirit.

Q. 60. How long ago is it since Christ died?
A. More than nineteen hundred years.

Q. 61. How were pious persons saved before the coming of Christ?
A. By believing in a Savior to come.

Q. 62. How did they show their faith?
A. By offering sacrifices on God's altar.

Q. 63. What did these sacrifices represent?
A. Christ, the Lamb of God, who was to die for sinners.

Q. 64. What offices has Christ?
A. Christ has three offices.

Q. 65. What are they?
A. The offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king.

Q. 66. How is Christ a prophet?
A. Because he teaches us the will of God.

Q. 67. How is Christ a priest?
A. Because he died for our sins and pleads with God for us.

Q. 68. How is Christ a king?
A. Because he rules over us and defends us.

Q. 69. Why do you need Christ as a prophet?
A. Because I am ignorant.

Q. 70. Why do you need Christ as a priest?
A. Because I am guilty.

Q. 71. Why do you need Christ as a king?
A. Because I am weak and helpless.

Q. 72. How many commandments did God give on Mount Sinai?
A. Ten commandments.

Q. 73. What are the ten commandments sometimes called?
A. The Decalogue.

Q. 74. What do the first four commandments teach?
A. Our duty to God.

Q. 75. What do the last six commandments teach?
A. Our duty to our fellow men.

Q. 76. What is the sum of the ten commandments?
A. To love God with all my heart, and my neighbor as myself.

Q. 77. Who is your neighbor?A. All my fellow men are my neighbors.

Q. 78. Is God pleased with those who love and obey him?
A. Yes; he says, "I love them that love me."

Q. 79. Is God displeased with those who do not love and obey him?
A. Yes; "God is angry with the wicked every day."

Q. 80. What is the first commandment?
A. The first commandment is, Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Q. 81. What does the first commandment teach us?
A. To worship God alone.

Q. 82. What is the second commandment?
A. The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any things that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I,
the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments.

Q. 83. What does the second commandment teach us?
A. To worship God in a proper manner, and to avoid idolatry.

Q. 84. What is the third commandment?
A. The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that
taketh his name in vain.

Q. 85. What does the third commandment teach me?
A. To reverence God's name, word, and works.

Q. 86. What is the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it
holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work, but the seventh
day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord
blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.

Q. 87. What does the fourth commandment teach us?
A. To keep the Sabbath holy.

Q. 88. What day of the week is the Christian Sabbath?
A. The first day of the week, called the Lord's day.

Q. 89. Why is it called the Lord's day?
A. Because on that day Christ rose from the dead.

Q. 90. How should the Sabbath be spent?
A. In prayer and praise, in hearing and reading God's Word, and in
doing good to our fellow men.

Q. 91. What is the fifth commandment?
A. The fifth commandment is, Honor thy father and thy mother, that
thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Q. 92. What does the fifth commandment teach me?
A. To love and obey our parents and teachers.

Q. 93. What is the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 94. What does the sixth commandment teach us?
A. To avoid angry passions.

Q. 95. What is the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 96. What does the seventh commandment teach us?
A. To be pure in heart, language, and conduct.

Q. 97. What is the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal.

Q. 98. What does the eighth commandment teach us?
A. To be honest and industrious.

Q. 99. What is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.

Q. 100. What does the ninth commandment teach us?
A. To tell the truth.

Q. 101. What is the tenth commandment?
A. The tenth commandment is, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is
thy neighbor's.

Q. 102. What does the tenth commandment teach us?
A. To be content with our lot.

Q. 103. Can any man keep these ten commandments perfectly?
A. No mere man, since the fall of Adam, ever did or can keep the
ten commandments perfectly.

Q. 104. Of what use are the ten commandments to us?
A. They teach us our duty, and show our need of a Savior.

Q. 105. What is prayer?
A. Prayer is asking God for things which he has promised to give.

Q. 106. In whose name should we pray?
A. Only in the name of Christ.

Q. 107. What has Christ given us to teach us how to pray?
A. The Lord's Prayer.

Q. 108. Repeat the Lord's Prayer.
A. Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy
kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us
this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.

Q. 109. How many petitions are there in The Lord's Prayer?
A. Six.

Q. 110. What is the first petition?
A. "Hallowed be thy name."

Q. 111. What do we pray for in the first petition?
A. That God's name may be honored by us and all men.

Q. 112. What is the second petition?
A. "Thy kingdom come."

Q. 113. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. That the gospel may be preached in all the world, and believed
and obeyed by us and all men.

Q. 114. What is the third petition?
A. "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

Q. 115. What do we pray for in the third petition?
A. That men on earth may serve God as the angels do in heaven.

Q. 116. What is the fourth petition?
A. "Give us this day our daily bread."

Q. 117. What do we pray for in the fourth petition?
A. That God would give us all things needful for our bodies and souls.

Q. 118. What is the fifth petition?
A. "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

Q. 119. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?
A. That God would pardon our sins for Christ's sake, and enable us
to forgive those who have injured us.

Q. 120. What is the sixth petition?
A. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

Q. 121. What do we pray for in the sixth petition?
A. That God would keep us from sin.

Q. 122. How many sacraments are there?
A. Two.

Q. 123. What are they?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Q. 124. Who appointed these sacraments?
A. The Lord Jesus Christ.

Q. 125. Why did Christ appoint these sacraments?
A. To distinguish his disciples from the world, and to comfort and
strengthen them.

Q. 126. What sign is used in baptism?
A. The washing with water.

Q. 127. What does this signify?
A. That we are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ.

Q. 128. In whose name are we baptized?
A. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Q. 129. Who are to be baptized?
A. Believers and their children.

Q. 130. Why should infants be baptized?
A. Because they have a sinful nature and need a Savior.

Q. 131. Does Christ care for little children?
A. Yes; for he says, "Suffer the little children to come unto me,
and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

Q. 132. To what does your baptism bind you?
A. To be a true follower of Christ.

Q. 133. What is the Lord's Supper?
A. The eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of the
sufferings and death of Christ.

Q. 134. What does the bread represent?
A. The body of Christ, broken for our sins.

Q. 135. What does the wine represent?
A. The blood of Christ, shed for our salvation.

Q. 136. Who should partake of the Lord's Supper?
A. Only those who repent of their sins, believe in Christ for
salvation, and love their fellow men.

Q. 137. Did Christ remain in the tomb after his crucifixion?
A. No; he rose from the tomb on the third day after his death.

Q. 138. Where is Christ now?
A. In heaven, interceding for sinners.

Q. 139. Will he come again?
A. Yes; at the last day Christ will come to judge the world.

Q. 140. What becomes of men at death?
A. The body returns to dust, and the soul goes into the world of spirits.

Q. 141. Will the bodies of the dead be raised to life again?
A. Yes; "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised."

Q. 142. What will become of the wicked in the day of judgment?
A. They shall he cast into hell.

Q. 143. What is hell?
A. A place of dreadful and endless torment.

Q. 144. What will become of the righteous?
A. They shall be taken to heaven.

Q. 145. What is heaven?
A. A glorious and happy place, where the righteous shall be
forever with the Lord."[2]

What an excellent catechism! :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Primer
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/cat_for_young_children.html

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Amyluv:

I'm sorry but the Epic of Gilgamesh wasn't just a piece of literature
but was at the core of the Babylonian belief system. It is only we
moderns that look at the religions of ancient peoples and call them
myths. This is difficult for Christians to believe but other people
believe their religions to be true *just like Christians* and that
includes the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, etc.
The Iliad was, in fact, not considered a work of myth but a work of
history at the time and purported to tell real events of real people.

Cheers
DGG

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Amyluv:

Actually, you're not even wrong about eye-witnesses. Eye-witnesses
are notoriously unreliable. To give an example, I recently was
witness to a car accident. I was riding my bike and a young woman in
a lime-green Volkswagen went through the intersection to make a turn,
plowing into a silver Honda. The police were on the scene within 10
minutes and there were five witnesses beyond the two women in the
respective cars. All of us hung around to give our statements. Now,
keep in mind that this is an event that happened not 10 minutes before
and NONE of our statements matched in details. Our sequences were
off, who went through the intersection first didn't agree. There were
a number of discrepancies. Despite what you see in television,
convictions based solely upon eye-witness accounts are uncommon and
many of those end up being overturned on better evidence.

Again, you are goal-post moving. You initially stated that the
apostles wouldn't have died for a lie and therefore this lends
credence to the claims of Christianity. Let me introduce you to two
relatively recent events where people died for ideologies that were
demonstrably false. The American Civil War and the European Theater
of the Second World War. Now, according to Southern ideology blacks
were an inherently inferior group, not all that much better than a
horse or cow that was kept as cattle, and slavery was a way of life
and economic arrangement worth defending. We can assume that the
people fighting for the South believed this and they died in the
hundreds of thousands. Are you going to sit there and claim that, in
point of fact, they had a point? Of course you aren't. The same
applies to the European theatre during the Second World War but more
so. The Germans had convinced themselves that they were the superior
people, that certainly Poles, Russians, Jews, Czechs and Romany
(Gypsies) had to be exterminated. Again, an ideology that is
manifestly and demonstrably false yet they believed it. Does that
mean that, in point of fact, the Nazi ideologues had a point? Again,
I'm sure you would say that they didn't.

People can and do die for false beliefs all the time, Amy. They may
not believe them to be false, but I, for one, will not concede the
point to Al Qaeda that maybe it *is* a good, holy and moral thing for
a 19 enterprising young men from Saudi Arabia to board an airplane and
fly them into buildings. The logic you are using is fundamentally
flawed and no amount of back-pedaling on your part is going to make it
less so.

Cheers
DGG

[Dag Yo]

> LMAO! That story is beautiful.

Actually I found it to be increasingly disturbing as I wrote it. Like
I imagined myself telling that to a kid and pretending like it was
real, and it just made me feel kinda sick. But it's simply a
paraphrased version of stuff that people tell their kids anyhow.

> You've got to let me publish it to my New
> Atheism blog Dag.
> May I?

Please do. :)

[Drafterman]

An excellent counter-point to Christianity. 100 points. :)

> ...
>
> read more »

[amyluv]

>
> >  the argument was that in Christianity, there is no people group put
> > up at the "top".
>
> The pope would disagree.

Catholic-ISM

[amyluv]

On Jul 12, 6:02 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, so what benefits did this people group get from starting this
new religion?
And/or
What continued benefits does that type of people group get from that
religion continuing on, or in other words, for people continuing to
believe their story.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Amyluv:

Despite what evangelical Christians believe, Catholics ARE Christians
as are Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Coptic Christians.
Different interpretations of the same religion but all the same
religion none-the-less.

Cheers
DGG

[amyluv]

On Jul 12, 6:51 am, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amyluv:
>
> I'm sorry but the Epic of Gilgamesh wasn't just a piece of literature
> but was at the core of the Babylonian belief system.  It is only we
> moderns that look at the religions of ancient peoples and call them
> myths.  This is difficult for Christians to believe but other people
> believe their religions to be true *just like Christians* and that
> includes the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, etc.
> The Iliad was, in fact, not considered a work of myth but a work of
> history at the time and purported to tell real events of real people.
>
> Cheers
> DGG
>

Okay. But do either of them claim to be the spoken word of the God
who created the Universe?
If not, then fine. I'm not denouncing their quality or that other
people believed in them religiously. My point is that one simply
cannot say there's nothing different about the bible. CS Lewis's
famous paragraph about Jesus either being the Lord he said he was,
he's a lier or he's a lunatic... same goes for the Bible. Either is
what it says it is, it's a huge Lie, or it's a work of lunacy. You
can't though, simply call it a great work of literature.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> LMAO! That story is beautiful.

Actually I found it to be increasingly disturbing as I wrote it.  Like
I imagined myself telling that to a kid and pretending like it was
real, and it just made me feel kinda sick.  But it's simply a
paraphrased version of stuff that people tell their kids anyhow.

> You've got to let me publish it to my New
> Atheism blog Dag.
> May I?

Please do.  :)

Done. :-) and Thanks!

[Trance Gemini]

I have no idea Amy, you're the Christian, you tell me :-).

I really don't see anything to be gained by religion.

Perhaps 2000 years ago there was but we really don't know enough about the history of that era to determine that.

Communal societies pre-existed Christianity and existed independent of Christianity so the fact that the Christians chose a communal society is interesting but I don't know enough about the period to explain why.

Belief of such a far fetched story is another matter. People believe a lot of idiotic things for many reasons. 

However, I believe that encouraging that kind of delusional belief is wrong.

 

[amyluv]

On Jul 12, 7:04 am, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amyluv:
>
> Actually, you're not even wrong about eye-witnesses. Eye-witnesses
> are notoriously unreliable. To give an example, I recently was
> witness to a car accident. I was riding my bike and a young woman in
> a lime-green Volkswagen went through the intersection to make a turn,
> plowing into a silver Honda. The police were on the scene within 10
> minutes and there were five witnesses beyond the two women in the
> respective cars. All of us hung around to give our statements. Now,
> keep in mind that this is an event that happened not 10 minutes before
> and NONE of our statements matched in details. Our sequences were
> off, who went through the intersection first didn't agree. There were
> a number of discrepancies. Despite what you see in television,
> convictions based solely upon eye-witness accounts are uncommon and
> many of those end up being overturned on better evidence.

I never said eye witness testimonies are reliable. I said the fact
that those 11 men died for what they said, gives weight to their
testimony. Just as lawyers in any suit would argue the credibility of
the witnesses in a court. If they can prove the eye-witness has
motive for not telling the truth, it seriously impedes that witnesses
credibility. These 11 men had nothing to gain and everything to lose
(in earthly terms) by not recanting. Add to their testimony the fact
that 500 other people also saw Jesus walking around. And this is
recorded in historical records outside the bible as well as well.

Think about it this way. If someone came out with a book this year
that says in it that 911 did not happen. What do you think the
reaction would be? The truth is, there wouldn't be much of an
investigation. There's a ton of people still alive who can be
questioned on the subject. Paul, who was either the first or one of
the first to document the resurrection, basically says 'and if you
don't believe me... go as the other 500 people who saw him". The book
is dated within 30 years of the event, and his statement verifies that
by stating that you could go and ask the others since they're still
alive.

So, in that day, if these 11 came out and said "we've seen Jesus
alive" and someone in the croud said "your lying!" and then 10 other
people in the croud said "no they're not... we saw him too".

If the resurrection did not happen, then the 11 are lying about seeing
Jesus. AND, the other 500 people who also saw Jesus are lying, or are
non existent. But again, the fact that crowds of people claim to see
the man named Jesus of Nazareth walking around after he was supposed
to be dead is recorded elsewhere. So, those records would have to be
lying too.

And... even if nobody caught it right away, then at least when the
book came out that said "go ask those other people who saw him"....
then they'd probably catch on. Plus... honestly, you don't say that
if your lying.

"After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to
the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of
the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds
of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history." - Josh
McDowel from http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

And on that website, regarding just the one small item of evidence we
are talking about:

Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive
and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of
history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a
special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is
the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive.
St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.'
Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty
years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to
get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago."

All these people you are using as examples died for beliefs. They
died because they made a judgement call and believed in something, not
because they weren't willing to recant a fact they had seen
something.

I think the 2 are very very different. I'm not using the eye-
witnesses to justify whether a certain belief is good or not, I'm
simply saying that they saw a fact. They told people about this fact.
Many people were quite upset by this fact since they had been trying
to kill Jesus and finally had gotten it over with and ... 'are you
kidding me'? It didn't work?'. Very upset is probably a gross
understatement... they were, literally, ready to kill someone.

This fact happens to be a very important fact and central to evidence
for Christianity, however it is still, just one fact. Did a risen
Jesus walk around or not? One fact.

The question is: Is there anyway we can tell if those men were
telling the truth about that fact or not?
The question is not: Is there anyway we can tell if that fact is good
or bad?

It's not a judgement call about ideologues; if slavery is good or bad,
or if killing Jews is good or bad, or whether or not flying airplanes
into buildings is good or bad. Those are judgement calls. Yes,
pretty obvious ones, but still, judgement calls. It's not Good or Bad
judgments we're discussing, it's True or False facts. Did those men
(and 500 more people) see a dead man walking around?

[amyluv]

On Jul 12, 3:03 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amyluv:
>
> Despite what evangelical Christians believe, Catholics ARE Christians
> as are Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Coptic Christians.
> Different interpretations of the same religion but all the same
> religion none-the-less.
>
> Cheers
> DGG

Yes, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians aren't
Catholics. And I'm not arguing a case for Catholicism, or any
denomination that overall seems to look more like the Pharisees of the
bible than of Jesus.

I cannot sit here and argue about the history of the church or the
hierarchy of Catholicism when quite frankly... I'm on your side on
that one.

Have I mentioned the movie "Luther" yet?

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:

>
> Okay.  But do either of them claim to be the spoken word of the God
> who created the Universe?

That's not irrelevant. Just because Star Wars begins with "A long
time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." does not mean that it is at
all reasonable to believe that Yoda is somewhere mangling the language
or that these are the droids you're looking for. The Bible can
*claim* to be the spoken word of God but in order to accept that
premise as being prima facie true (as you do) one *already* has to
believe that the Bible is the word of God. If you do not then your
point is entirely irrelevant.

> If not, then fine.  I'm not denouncing their quality or that other
> people believed in them religiously.  My point is that one simply
> cannot say there's nothing different about the bible.

Actually, one can say exactly that. The reason we in the West
consider the Bible to be so important is because it's *ours*. To
Hindus the Bible is just a collection of Middle Eastern mythology
while the Vedas and the Upanishads are the real revealed truth and if
you had been born a Hindu, in a Hindu nation, it would be
statistically very likely that you would be a Hindu.

> CS Lewis's
> famous paragraph about Jesus either being the Lord he said he was,
> he's a lier or he's a lunatic... same goes for the Bible.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Look it up.

>   Either is
> what it says it is, it's a huge Lie, or it's a work of lunacy.

No, what it is is a myth and the more you study about what the people
who the Hebrews had contact with (the Babylonians, Sumerians,
Egyptians, Greeks and Romans) believed you start to see the
parallels. And since three of those civilizations are far older than
the Hebrews (the first three) it's much more likely that the Hebrews
took the myths of other people and adapted them to their own unique
culture. Let me ask you this, if you came across a book about, say, a
man named Ehab who was chasing after a grey whale named Doby Mick,
would you not start to suspect that what you had in your hands was a
rip-off of another book about a guy named Ahab who is chasing after a
white whale named Moby Dick. If that book began "Ishmael is what I am
called" as opposed to, say, 'Call me Ishmael' would you not strongly
suspect that one author took from the other? And if one book was
published in, say, 1860 and the other in, say, 2008 would you not
strongly suspect that the latter work is based off the former? Now,
why on Earth is it that the same kind of logic cannot be applied to
the Bible? Please explain, without referencing your OWN personal
belief, why it is beyond comprehension that while other cultures
borrowed from one another and used one another's myths, in the case of
the Hebrews they did not take anything from any culture they were in
contact with *despite* some very stunning parallels between their
myths and the myths of others.

And, really, do look up the fallacy of the excluded middle. You are
indulging in it wantonly here.

Cheers
DGG

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 12, 4:30 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:03 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Amyluv:
>
> > Despite what evangelical Christians believe, Catholics ARE Christians
> > as are Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Coptic Christians.
> > Different interpretations of the same religion but all the same
> > religion none-the-less.
>
> > Cheers
> > DGG
>
> Yes, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians aren't
> Catholics. And I'm not arguing a case for Catholicism, or any
> denomination that overall seems to look more like the Pharisees of the
> bible than of Jesus.

Okay Amy, I'm only going to ask you this once. I'm not stupid. I
think I've established that sufficiently in my interactions with you.
I'll thank you not to speak to me as if I were stupid and saying
"Catholics are Chrstians but not all Christians are Catholics" is
talking down to me. Now, to give you a sense of what this is like
I'll illustrate:

YOU: CATHOLIC-ISM (As a means of drawing a contrast to Christianity--
please don't say that's not what you were doing because it's plain
that's *precisely* what you were doing)

ME: Amy, Christians ARE Catholics, as are Greek Orthodox, Russian
Orthodox...

YOU: Yes, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians aren't
Catholics.

Please reference my prior point. Greek and Russian Orthodox are NOT
Catholics but they ARE Christians. Are we perfectly clear on this
matter now? Next time you try to insult my intelligence as a means of
covering your own mistakes, I'm going to be less polite about it and
you wouldn't like me when I decide not to be polite. Now, please find
me somewhere in the sentence "Despite what evangelical Christians

believe, Catholics ARE Christians as are Russian Orthodox, Greek

Orthodox and Coptic Christians." where it would suggest that I believe
that all Christians are Catholics since I just plainly and, as far as
I am aware, in English stated something quite the contrary.

> I cannot sit here and argue about the history of the church or the
> hierarchy of Catholicism when quite frankly... I'm on your side on
> that one.
>
> Have I mentioned the movie "Luther" yet?

Yes, it's irrelevant but you've mentioned it.

Cheers
DGG

[Dag Yo]

Forgive me if I'm being a touch too dense but I really wasn't trying
to make a counterpoint, a straw man, or write up any amount of
satire. What I wrote is honestly exactly what I understand the bible
to say from a Christian (as opposed to Jewish) perspective. If it
seems like i'm playing around at all it's because I was trying to
write it like a story for little kids.

> > read more �

[Dag Yo]

> I never said eye witness testimonies are reliable. I said the fact
> that those 11 men died for what they said, gives weight to their
> testimony.

Are you suggesting that dying for what one says provides a degree of
evidence that what was said was correct?

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:

> I never said eye witness testimonies are reliable.

Umm, Amy, you may want to consider the possibility that words actually
have meaning.

> I said the fact
> that those 11 men died for what they said, gives weight to their
> testimony.

Umm, Amy, the fact that you grant weight to the testimony means,
follow me here, YOU BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY TO BE RELIABLE. Sweet pot-
bellied Buddha, woman, do you read what you post and check for
consistency?

>  Just as lawyers in any suit would argue the credibility of
> the witnesses in a court.  If they can prove the eye-witness has
> motive for not telling the truth, it seriously impedes that witnesses
> credibility.  These 11 men had nothing to gain and everything to lose
> (in earthly terms) by not recanting.

The same can be said for, as Belly has pointed out, those 19
enterprising young men from Saudi Arabia and Joseph Smith.

>  Add to their testimony the fact
> that 500 other people also saw Jesus walking around.  And this is
> recorded in historical records outside the bible as well as well.

Umm, which historical records? Josephus, who was a Roman historian
and wrote *extensively* about the Jews missed it (the one passage that
is attributed to him is, in fact, the work of a later writer
Eusebius). What's more several early Christian fathers, who would've
used Josephus had he written about Jesus (they quote him on other
matters) miss this passage. Eusebius is the first to 'quote' Josephus
in this context and the text itself is out of context for the passage
that it appears in. (Talking about the first century rebellion put
down by the Romans and resulting in the destruction of the temple in
Jerusalem)

Tacitus makes no mention of him (there's another quotation, ascribed
to him which, on closer examination is also a fraud).

Pliny the Younger allegedly wrote about Jesus in the 2nd Century CE
however, that is *also* possibly a forgery in that the character of
the letter itself does not jibe with Pliny's other writings, what's
more the characterization of the emperor Tertulian is out of synch
with the rest of what is known about him.

So the three seminal historians of the time, NONE OF THEM,
contemporaneous with the time that Jesus allegedly lived mention him.
Of the historians who *were* alive in the first century CE, NOT ONE
mentions Jesus. He shows up neither in Roman or Jewish histories that
have survived to this day OTHER than in the New Testament.

> Think about it this way.  If someone came out with a book this year
> that says in it that 911 did not happen.  What do you think the
> reaction would be?

Laughter because there is AMPLE historical evidence that, in point of
fact, 9/11 DID happen. If such a book came out, it would have to
explain why WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. Why there was a Congressional
investigation into an incident that did not happen, etc.

Let me give you a counter example; imagine that Arthur Schlesinger,
Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, three of the more
prominent 20th century American historians, don't mention the second
presidential term of Bush the Elder. They write about Congress, they
write about all manner of American history tangential to the
Presidency, even talking extensively about the President getting into
a battle with Congress resulting in the federal government shutting
down for a brief time. But not a single mention of Bush the Elder's
second term in office. Would it not be reasonable for someone living,
say, 1,000 years from now to presume that the reason the omission is
there is because Bush the Elder did NOT have a second term?

 The truth is, there wouldn't be much of an
> investigation.

For the reasons I elucidate above.

 There's a ton of people still alive who can be
> questioned on the subject. Paul, who was either the first or one of
> the first to document the resurrection, basically says 'and if you
> don't believe me... go as the other 500 people who saw him".

Interestingly, none of these 500 other people appear to have written
word one.

>  The book
> is dated within 30 years of the event, and his statement verifies that
> by stating that you could go and ask the others since they're still
> alive.
>

Actually, that's wrong. The *earliest* date for a synoptic Gospel is
90 CE which means that the very first books of the New Testament were
written the best part of six decades AFTER the events and this in a
time when literacy was rare.

> If the resurrection did not happen, then the 11 are lying about seeing
> Jesus.  

Or the it's a metaphor. So you would say that when the Buddha died,
there was a great earthquake and lightning split the earth open
because, according to legend, that's what happen in full view of
monks, nuns and witnesses. So would you concede this event happened
as told?

>AND, the other 500 people who also saw Jesus are lying, or are
> non existent.  But again, the fact that crowds of people claim to see
> the man named Jesus of Nazareth walking around after he was supposed
> to be dead is recorded elsewhere. So, those records would have to be
> lying too.

WHERE is it recorded, Amy? Saying "it's recorded" and it *being*
recorded aren't the same thing. References please.

>
> "After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to
> the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of
> the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds
> of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history." - Josh
> McDowel fromhttp://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Mr. McDowel is more than welcome to his opinion but he, again, is
engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle.

No, they died because they believed something to be TRUE. In the same
sense that you are saying that the apostles would not have died for
their beliefs had they not been true these people would not have died
for their beliefs had they not believed them to be true. Again, you
are goal-post moving because your own statement has become
inconvenient to you.

>
> I think the 2 are very very different.  I'm not using the eye-
> witnesses to justify whether a certain belief is good or not, I'm
> simply saying that they saw a fact. They told people about this fact.
> Many people were quite upset by this fact since they had been trying
> to kill Jesus and finally had gotten it over with and ... 'are you
> kidding me'?  It didn't work?'.  Very upset is probably a gross
> understatement... they were, literally, ready to kill someone.

Again, no contemporaneous historian appears to have ANY knowledge of
this. None. Zip. Bupkis.

>
> The question is:  Is there anyway we can tell if those men were
> telling the truth about that fact or not?
> The question is not:  Is there anyway we can tell if that fact is good
> or bad?

Non sequitur.

>
> It's not a judgement call about ideologues; if slavery is good or bad,
> or if killing Jews is good or bad, or whether or not flying airplanes
> into buildings is good or bad.  Those are judgement calls.

No, they are beliefs, Amy. They are not judgment calls, they are
beliefs. If you *genuinely* believe that slavery is worth dying over
then it doesn't matter if slavery is objectively wrong (it is for
reasons I hope needn't be belabored but probably will have to be at
some point) because you believe it to be right and proper. You are
goal-post moving, Amy and it is transparent that you are doing so to
everyone reading this, except perhaps yourself.

Cheers
DGG

 

[Belly Bionic]

On Jul 12, 3:05 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:

Why not? The Lord, Liar, or Lunatic argument is flawed in that it
presupposes that those are the *only* three possible options. They
are not. Despite your insistence, it's entirely possible that each
book of the Bible was written as a work of fiction. It's also
entirely possible that the people believed it at the time. Given that
none of the Bible was written personally by Jesus, and as far as I'm
aware, none of it was written while he was alive, it's entirely
possible that the stories written about him were embellished, as such
legends tend to be.

As an example, dozens of unrelated authors who never met each other
have written hundreds of stories about King Arthur and the Knights of
the Round Table. These stories all vary slightly in the minor
details, but all of the major authors agree on the major details
(Arthur marrying Gwenivere, Sir Lancelot and their affair, the sword
in the stone, etc). Of all the reasons you've given for believing in
Jesus, the only one not satisfied by Arthurian legend is the internal
claim of being the word of a deity, and any one of the authors could
easily have added that claim in anytime they felt like it. If such a
claim were necessary for the story, they surely would have, because
it's just that easy for someone who is writing a story to add in a bit
about it being the word of God.

King Arthur did not exist. Arthurian legend is just that, a legend.
A myth. A myth that some people read and believe to be true, but it's
not.

Nearly everything that Americans refer to as mythology has been
devoutly believed by some large group of people in the past. Greek
mythology is not just a bunch of stories that someone made up for
fun. The people of ancient Greece truly believed that events in those
stories actually happened, just as they were written, every bit as
much as you believe the Bible. They truly believed that the people
who wrote those stories were speaking for the gods. So why are you
right and they weren't?

[Drafterman]

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.

[amyluv]

Dag,

When I first read what you wrote (to a 7 year old) I did reply (LOL)
because I did laugh at the absurdity of it. But as I've been thinking
about it, I realized that it was probably written out of what you do
believe about Christianity. And obviously from others reactions, your
not alone.

So, I just wanted to say for what it's worth... I'm very very sorry
for your history with Christianity that they've given you that
impression.

A

> ...
>
> read more »

[amyluv]

>
> Are you suggesting that dying for what one says provides a degree of
> evidence that what was said was correct?
>

I'm saying it adds credibility to their testimony, esp. because that
they nothing to gain by lying.

[Belly Bionic]

I share Dag Yo's opinion. I came to have that particular opinion
after reading the Bible. That's all. Just reading the Bible. All of
the depravity, violence, sadism, and outright evil of the god on the
Bible is right there for anyone to see if they're willing to read it
without conveniently waving away the bits they'd rather not see.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Belly Bionic]

You're still assuming that the only two possibilities are that they
were right or they were lying. The possibility does very much exist
that they believed it with their whole being, and were just wrong.

[amyluv]

Sorry I don't have much time.. but the short answer is because
historians have verified the events in the bible to be accurate
historical accounts of what happened. Using the historic method of
study. Just like we know Napoleon lived because it's recorded in
history.

[amyluv]

>
> WHERE is it recorded, Amy?  Saying "it's recorded" and it *being*
> recorded aren't the same thing. References please.
>
>
>

Your right, I really should list references when I make a statement
like that. I just don't have the time right now to put into
researching it. Good excuse? No. I've been off for a few days but
now need to go back to work. I will try to continue my examination
and get back to you with more detail.

[amyluv]

Sorry Drafter, I just meant that I personally (and sorry to all you
Catholics out there... but I'm allowed my opinion) group Catholics in
with the "isms", even though they are very different. Catholicism is
just a whole 'nother ball park all together, and wasn't really my
intent when writing the original list of "ism" observations... however
they do fit several, but obviously not all.

[The Belly Bionic]

Amy, in this context "-ity" and "-ism" mean the same thing.  Your religion could just as easily be called Christianism and it would make no difference.  You're hanging your argument on a minor point of semantics.

[Drafterman]

Christianity is an ISM too, even if it is not written that way.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 1:30 AM, amyluv <wright...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dag,

When I first read what you wrote (to a 7 year old) I did reply (LOL)
because I did laugh at the absurdity of it.  But as I've been thinking
about it, I realized that it was probably written out of what you do
believe about Christianity.  And obviously from others reactions, your
not alone.

So, I just wanted to say for what it's worth... I'm very very sorry
for your history with Christianity that they've given you that
impression.

It's not an "impression" Amy. The Bible actually says that.

[amyluv]

Agreed.

I'm just using the "ism" thing because Christianity just happens to
not be called Christianism, and most of the other popular religions
just happen to end in "ism" so it's a easy way to group them together
for comparison reasons.

[amyluv]

Yes, your right.. that is also a possibility.

I just happen to not think it's a likely one given the other evidence
available for the resurrection.

[Dag Yo]

Well don't feel too sorry for me, I just reached that conclusion after
hearing all too many people talk about how everyone is deserving of
eternal punishment in hell for their sins, which is the case thanks to
"original sin", and even Christians are deserving of this punishment,
but Jesus (who is God) died for us so we wouldn't have to go to hell.

Out of curiosity why do you think people need salvation except to
protect them from a God who would punish finite crimes with infinite
punishment?

On Jul 12, 10:30 pm, amyluv <wright_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Belly Bionic]

No, it's a completely meaningless way to group them together. Islam
is not an "-ism", and yet I seem to recall you lumping it in with all
the other beliefs you're insisting are man-made where Christianity is
not. Try as you might to convince us and yourself otherwise,
Christianity is every bit as man-made as every other religion.
Prefixes and suffixes have absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Belly Bionic]

"Somebody (maybe the person making the claim, maybe someone else, we
can't really be sure) said they saw it decades after it happened and
claimed to have other witnesses, for which we also have only the
author's word."

is more likely than

"They believed it, but they were wrong?"