to an unknown god

[gnosis_within]

ok, let's all open up our bibles to the book of matthew.....
we will start with chapter 16, verse 28:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

now 23:36

Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

now on to 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

now let's turn to the book of mark, chapter 9, verse 1:

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

and 13:30

Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

now on to luke, chapter 9, verse 27:

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

and 21:32

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

and now on to....well, i think you get my point. jesus said he was coming back in the lifetime of the people he was around. he never came. this proves he was not the son of god. how could the son of god be incorrect about anything? why worship a god that claims to be perfect yet makes mistakes?

most of the new testament was written by paul (at least that is what most chirstians say, some scholars say they have proven that the books were written by several individuals), who never even met jesus. as you know, the story goes that he was converted when he had a vision. why do you believe paul's story? what makes him any different than joseph smith?

have you read ALL of the gospels? did you know there were 173 gospels that were voted out of the bible before it was cannonized? even the book of revelation that is in the current bible was rejected in the beginning.
do you really have enough faith in men to believe they chose the right books?

does anyone really follow the teachings of jesus anymore?

matthew 6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

if this is the case, why are christians always setting up public prayer events and praying together in church?

matthew 5:29
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

5:30
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

when was the last time you heard of a christian doing this?

5:31
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

i have met many christians that have remarried and do not worry about committing adultery, in fact, most churches encourage people to find someone new after they divorce.

matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

seen any middle class christians giving up their familes or belongings for jesus lately?

mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

luke 10:17
And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

10:19
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

most christians laugh at the people that claim to be able to do these things.

10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

so christians are stupid?

14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

if men are to love their wives as christ loved the church, wouldn't this verse imply that chirst hates the church?

i could go on even longer, but i hope this is enough to prove my point. jesus was not the son of god and true christianity doesn't exist any longer because no one in their right mind would follow his teachings.




------------------

[marturios]

gnosis within: you went to a lot of work to make your point. You are right that many professing christians live contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

In fact let me be the first to say that the name of Jesus is blasphemed among the nations because of hypocritical christians. This is unfortunate for both authentic christians and for non-christians.

But the actions of superficial christians does not invalidate the truth of Jesus anymore than the actions of speeders invalidate traffic laws.

I hope you have seen by my posts that I am not a christian who deliberately lives contrary to Jesus' teachings. I strive to live consistently with the teachings in speech, thought and action.

As for the texts you cited, most are easily understood in their proper narrative context. Your presentation makes christianity seem foolish on the surface but those who grapple with scripture on a regular basis know that what you done defies proper textual study. Even non-christians will acknowledge that you have distorted the picture to suit your bias.


The least you could do is consider the genre of the texts under consideration, watch for use of metaphor and such things. Whether you are reading the Bible or any other book that is a good rule to respect.

You don't dislike Jesus or christianity because of the verses you cited. You dislike them anyway, but by citing the texts you feel better about it.

When you wrote "true christianity doesn't exist any longer because no one in their right mind would follow his teachings" did you mean that christianity used to be true and now it's not? Or that true christianity once existed but modern versions are false? Or it would exist but no one wants to take it seriously?

I am a christian and I am in my right mind. You are out of your mind to claim that despising Jesus and criticizing his teachings proves one's intelligence. Such a claim makes one foolish not wise.

------------------
Dare2
DV8

[Devil's Advocate]

Okay - now I feel compelled to express my ideas.

The Bible is a peice of literature - written and rewritten in ancient times according to whichever social constraints and beliefs were held at the time.

Case in point: There are actually 2 different creation stories in Genesis. One reveals a God who walks with man (Adam) and talks and touches both the earth and man. The other reveals an omnipotent God who is an entity above the earth looking down upon his creation.

Are these stories contradictory? Not necessarily. What happened is quite simple. At one point in time while the Old Testament was being created people believed that God was with man - one of us. At another point in time people believed that God was a higher being "above" us - so at some point people added the second story to make it fit their societal boundries of the time. The literary difference is an obvious one. But the spiritual point of the story is the same - God created the earth and man.

I.E. The moral of the story remains the same regardless of what social constraints are at work in the literary sense.

So, my point is... I don't think that the Bible needs to be seen as "Divine Word" and/or taken literally. I think that there can be much gained from the stories of the Bible - directly or indirectly. Depending on how one interprets the stories they may even become a "how not to" edict.

I was raised Roman Catholic and quickly found the strict belief system quite difficult to stomach. I am the type of person who asks "why" all the time and in grade school or in church I never got my "why's" answered in any sufficient way.

So, another story. Once when I was younger I asked my mother why I needed to go to Confession when the Bible says that when Jesus passed the veil between God and man was split in half in order to allow man to speak with God himself, confess his sins himself an no longer have to go through a Priest (or man of God or whatever). My mother's answer (after I badgered her for days) was: Because sometimes people need someone to talk to. Because sometimes it is important for someone who is lost or needs help to have a safe haven to go to and get the direction and/or help they need.

Okay - I thought that was a great answer - true or not - it gave me a reason.

Since then I have attended a Catholic University. There I learned more and more answer's to my "why" questions. Suddenly the belief system was brought down to a humanistic level - a level where I could understand the impact on my life and the reason to believe.

I am sure that devout Catholics would still call me blasphemous - and that is okay with me. But I must say, the more I learn about religions - any religion - the more I take away and the more I am able to develop my own need for religion in my life - spiritually and practically. And the more I understand that other people may have different needs than myself which is why they may choose to belief something different than myself or utilize different religious rituals than myself.

My point is - the Bible is a good story. And in my opinion, should be read as such so as not to get caught up in the socialistic tendencies which the authors brought to it. If you can do that, in my opinion, then there the point of the Bible has not been lost.

Of course, this could go for any of the many other religious works out there - Christian or otherwise.

That's my 2 cents.

P.S. I used the word "man" here quite a bit. I, of course, mean man AND woman - I was just trying to save typing.

------------------

[bemused]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Devil's Advocate:
[B]
Are these stories contradictory? Not necessarily. What happened is quite simple. At one point in time while the Old Testament was being created people believed that God was with man - one of us. At another point in time people believed that God was a higher being "above" us - so at some point people added the second story to make it fit their societal boundries of the time. The literary difference is an obvious one. But the spiritual point of the story is the same - God created the earth and man.

wow! good post. Don't disagree with any of it. Personally I waffle between seeing bible as literature and as revealed truth. Not that I think those are contradictory points of view. Just looking at it with a different focus depending on which "hat" I'm wearing. Literary scholar or Chrisitan believer. And since they are both on the same person I find that my literary scholarship is enriched by my faith and vice versa.
Anyway, I gotta wonder if that is the only way to interpret the two different ways God is portrayed in the two versions. Maybe there were two different writers writing at two different times and maybe not. I'm not convinced one way or the other. Generally I lean toward thinking there are fewer distinct "authors" then many biblical scholars currently theorize. Could be one guy showing two different ways man interacts with God. There are lots of places in the bible where the same story is told in two different ways. It's actually a pattern that fascinates me. But then I'm also reading Ulysses by Joyce and he adopts many different styles within the one book. And different parts of the book are told by different characters who see the same events in very different lights. So I don't think different styles and different focus necessarily imply different authors and a different understanding of God.
Then again maybe they do.

------------------
"We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time." --T.S. Eliot

known tyle since she was bald.

[gnosis_within]

marturios,


if god is infinite, you would not be able to find one thing that was not god. if you did, that would set a boundary on him.

if god is all-loving, he would love sin, and why would god punish a person for doing something that he loves.

if god is all-knowing, and jesus is god, then he would have to know when he is coming back, yet in the bible, not only was he incorrect about when he was coming back, he later said that he does not know when he is coming again.

if god is so great and powerful, why did the devil, who could actually see him, think he could do better?

if jesus was so great and powerful, why did people, even his own disciples, doubt him?

why are we punished for adam and eve's sin? if your great grandfather committed a murder, would it be fair to force him to produce offspring that would also be punished for his act?

what is sin? is it going against god's will? what is god's will? why do so many christians disagree about it? why was god so vague?

according to the bible, the earth is about 10,000 years old, but science has proved otherwise. what do you think about evolution?

why did god have a chosen people? does god play favorites?

why did god order the murder of men, women, and children?

why did god harden the pharoh's heart? does he get off on pestilence?

why did god himself kill so many people? one of the ten commandments is thou shalt not kill. does he mean do as i say, not as i do? why worship a hypocrite?

if jesus was god, why did he pray to himself?

did jesus prove the futility of prayer in the garden before he was crucified?

if god knows what we need, why does he make us beg for it? would you worship a person that was like that?

why did jesus promise to return during the lifetime of those present when he knew he wasn't? why worship a liar?

why accept paul's account of his vision when he tells the story at least three different ways in the bible? aren't joseph smith's and mohammed's accounts more consistent?

have you ever seen a woman and lusted after her? did you pluck your eye out?

after lusting, did you gratify yourself? did you cut your hand off?

have you given everything you have to the poor to follow jesus?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The least you could do is consider the genre of the texts under consideration, watch for use of metaphor and such things. Whether you are reading the Bible or any other book that is a good rule to respect.

You don't dislike Jesus or christianity because of the verses you cited. You dislike them anyway, but by citing the texts you feel better about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, how do you know which part is metaphor? couldn't the entire story of jesus be a metaphor?

and you are right, i don't dislike jesus or christianity, i dislike christians.

------------------

[Devil's Advocate]

I have to say marturios, you have done an amazing job in defending what you believe. I would think that a discussion like this only strengthens your beliefs as you are asked to "defend" and/or explain them.

Though I may not share the beliefs you hold as truth, I do have an amazing respect for your continued polite and direct responses!

------------------

[JimDenney]

Welcome to Mars Hill, marturios. I just discovered this thread today. Fascinating. Commendable approach.

gnosis_within--

Some of your questions are truly difficult, but others seem (to me at least) to be mere distortions or falsely premised (though I'm sure you state them with genuine sincerity); such as:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>if god is infinite, you would not be able to find one thing that was not god. if you did, that would set a boundary on him. [This strikes me as a straw argument--define God according to the need of your argument, then knock down your conveniently-defined God. I'm not saying you do so with ill intent--that is probably how you genuinely see God. But it is certainly not my Godview. That is a pantheist view.]

if god is all-loving, he would love sin, and why would god punish a person for doing something that he loves. [IMHO, it is a logical absurdity to say that God must love sin; it is a clear principle in Scripture that God loves sinners while hating sin; "all-loving" refers to his love for people, not his love for everything that exists--how could God love people and evil at the same time, when evil hurts people? Nice try, though. ]

if god is all-knowing, and jesus is god, then he would have to know when he is coming back, yet in the bible, not only was he incorrect about when he was coming back, he later said that he does not know when he is coming again. [The Bible is very clear on the fact that Jesus set aside God-prerogatives in taking human form.]

if jesus was so great and powerful, why did people, even his own disciples, doubt him? [Because he confounded their expectations of the Messiah. In context, it seems obvious (to me, at least).]

why are we punished for adam and eve's sin? if your great grandfather committed a murder, would it be fair to force him to produce offspring that would also be punished for his act? [We are responsible for our own sin. I am unaware of any passage in the Bible that says we are punished for the sin of Adam and Eve.]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so on and so forth.

Some questions you ask are really unanswerable. But then so is the question, "Why is light both a particle and a wave, depending on the way you conduct your measurement?" The fact that we find paradox in the reality of nature does not mean we stop believing in science. And the fact that we find paradox in spiritual reality does not mean that God does not exist.

In my own forum, I present scientific evidence that God does exist.

I wish you well.

--jd

------------------
Author of ANSWERS TO SATISFY THE SOUL
Website at Denneybooks.com
Moderator of the ANSWERS TO SATISFY THE SOUL Forum



[This message has been edited by JimDenney (edited October 26, 2001).]

[Tin_Heart]

marturios: I had tried to keep this discussion as non-personal and objective as possible, even as it was clear you were not doing the same. I have debated long and hard wither to post on this thread, or even this board again. With much deliberation I have decided your attitude towards my arguments is not out of a malicious or spiteful nature, but is infact cause by some forgivable factor that is as of yet unknown to me.

You say

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I want you to know that I do not think any less of you as person.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet, you stated in an above post.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The verdict: Light has come into the world, but humanity loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which is it? Do you respect me as a person with valid questions and beliefs? Or a depraved maniac who gets some sort of kick out of defying the creator of the world?

It's possible you did not realize your own contradiction, though why you would infer that we are slaves to some perverse masochism is harder to explain, the optimist in my will always hope you had good intentions posting that.

However, you go on again to say:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

But you know that mere evidences cannot persuade otherwise you and others who have honestly weighed the evidence would be Christian.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This at first struck me as the most hypocritical thing I had ever seen anyone claim, seeing at how you all but refused to review the 'evidence' I had presented to you, but I soon changed my mind. It is entirely possible you were trying to symbolically emulate what you believe is the conscious ignoring of facts supporting Christianity.

While this is a very clever argument device, it is also an absolute false statement. If you had said "It is by believe, etc." it would have been an opinion. As stated, it is a falsehood.

Evidence dose sway people. Columbus had the theory the earth was round, and though popular opinion was against him, the evidence he brought back of the new world won the majority over.

Galileo Galilei's theory that all bodies are affect the same by gravity couldn't be proven until such time as we could acquire such a low atmosphere that there would be no wind resistance. When we landed on the moon and dropped a hammer and a feather from the same height, both hitting the ground at the same time, that evidence convinced almost everyone.

The only exception I've noted are the Christian fundamentalists.

In your explanation of your 'four ways' you cite faith as your proof you, personally, are right about who created the cosmos.

But others have similar faith. In Allah, in Buddha, in the Goddess. Who are you, that your faith is more valid? Who are you to claim they have false faiths tailored to their conscience? The Muslims would say the very same of you, and you would dismiss it. If you chose to continue your current pattern, you'd dismiss it without explaining why.

In your second responds, you do not address my question. You instead state that people silence their conscience to fit their whims. I asked why my conscience tells me woman and men are equal. I did not silence ANY, and I repeat, ANY little voice that told me otherwise. You assumed I did. I have believed this ALL of my life.

You seem to do a whole lot of assuming.

In your third responds, you give me an answer akin to patting me on the head and telling me I'll "Understand when I'm older." You do not address my questions, save for the one you had a prepared answer for.

I do not blame you for this behavior. I have noted often when attempting to speak to adults on their level, many fall into the defense of "I am older, therefore you are an idiot." However, because this is common, does not mean it is not frustrating. And adding it to all the other circumstantial incidents, it was starting to grate my nerves.

In your fourth answer, you claim that since I admit the possibility that Jesus existed, That was proof you are right. You proceeded to ignore my post concerning another religious leader who can be viewed even today, as he is still alive. *In his ninth incarnation, if I am correct* I can only choose to believe that you were proven right because I had the curtesy of not pretending like you hadn't posted that part.

However, it is possible you were pressed for time, and therefor only skimmed through my message, as I am newest to both the forum and the thread. That in itself is forgivable, I've done that before in my time.

Where I get caught up is how you can claim Gnosis has "distorted the picture to suit your bias" when he is interpreting the prophecy in the same why people at the time interpreted it. Infact, when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, many expected the second coming, as was predicted.

For a while nothing happened, the John wrote "Revelations".

I can understand how this might not have been as common knowledge as I thought it would be, as I admit I had taken a vested interest in that particular prophecy some time back.

However, what you said that kills the Pollyanna in me was this:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

People do not believe because they do not want to believe, not because the content is lacking.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of being banned from the board, I'd like to state my opinion on this.

It's absolute dyed in the wool bullshit. You don't know me, and unless you claim to BE God, you cannot see my heart. You do not know what I believe or do not, or infact why I do not believe it. You declare you've won the argument because yours is the only voice you hear. That's logic akin to A=A in my book.

Perhaps you meant you don't believe you could be wrong, because YOU don't want to believe?

My points, idea's and views are belittled enough in reality without someone on line telling my why I do or do not think something. As it seems nothing I can say will be taken any way contrary to you preconceived objective, feel free to see my sudden lack of posting as a sign you were right. Above all, never wonder if God was serious about that "Judge not least ye be judged" thing.

------------------
Tin Heart

"Then, like a child, I closed my eyes, that I might not see the darkness..."

-JV

[pplaverita]

If I may add something to this thread, I would grant both parties an equal portion of truth; but truth mingles with falsity, so the two parties' views oppose to each other.
Indeed, Gnosis's points were unfortunate, though no one can deny their power over simple minds. And simple minds are easy to handle, so one must expose the inconsistency in the above points (as JimDenney tried to do), rather than counter those points by introducing no less questionable ideas (as Marturius did).
God is not "out there, plain to see". By addressing Him as the our Father, no matter true or not, creates a false impression of what God is. The God of the Old Testament is one thing, the God of the New Testament is another, the God of John's Revelation is a third. And this is only within Christianity, that is, leaving out the versions of Divinity in other religions.
Conceiving His substance by reason is futile; treating His concept by reason, while we communicate it with others, is compromising. I am suspicious against anyone who shows scientific evidence of God's existence. Science itself developed as a means to expel the supernatural elements from nature (and God IS supernatural).
God's substance and existence is not as much legitimate topic of a discussion, as God's purpose and will is. What is, where is, how is he like, is it "He" or "She" - all these are nonsense. What God wants from us is of more importance.
What I know/think about/believe/have been told/feel about God is only what My own inner representation of God consists of. And such representations go hand-in-hand with social conventions, propaganda, superstitions, personal insight and circumstances. Accepting all these things instead of rejecting them might seem wrong, if we want to seize God's concept at once - but it is a good start in order to reconciliate the different (often seeming contadictory) aspects of God's existence.

------------------
Never onlyne

[JimDenney]

To all:

If you want to better understand marturios, read Acts 17.

--jd



------------------
Author of ANSWERS TO SATISFY THE SOUL
Website at Denneybooks.com
Moderator of the ANSWERS TO SATISFY THE SOUL Forum