Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The foundation of modern christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • further more we have preconstantine history, and Christian history at that

    we can actually trace ideas as they entered the church

    you can easily (And many protestant churchs have) go back and see wha t is false

    there are even gnostics arround now

    Jon Miller
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

    Comment


    • If you could go back and see what really happened we would have fewer sects of christianity because there would be no doubt as to the truth.

      We don't even have conclusive evidence as to wear Osama Bin Laden is hiding let alone what happened over a thousand years ago.
      What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
      What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

      Comment


      • Just because you disagre is no reason to label my opinion as B.S.
        I could be absolutely right and you could absolutely wrong.
        What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
        What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pax Africanus
          It is my firm belief that the scriptures in the bible have been altered many times. I don't understand how you could really argue the obvious.
          I'm glad you can see that what I am arguing is obvious. (you're looking for the word "against" I think)

          If you understood what I said at all you would see that I gave you "the bible ha(s) been altered many times" as a given in the equations. I'm not arguing against that.

          You say there is an ideology that became corrupted. You then claim that because it was corrupted, no one could possibly ever have the original ideology again. This is bogus, as the ideology is obviously obtainable from a situation where it previously didn't exist. How else did it come into being in the first place?

          From an aethiestic standpoint there are plenty of ways to explain it. Regardless of which way you go with, if it happened once, it can happen again. It's physics at work and the laws are still the same.

          From a theistic standpoint, the ideology is based on God and Jesus the Christ. They have the ability to either preserve or restore the word in this case. With God all things are possible. You seem to be in this category as you feel there was something to corrupt in the first place, a holy word so to speak. You give God the credit for having created something pure in the first place, and deny His ability to create it again or purify the original. With God all things are possible, so it's an untenable position.

          Either way the ideology that was before the 'corruption' is obtainable again. Doesn't mean it is being practiced, just that it is possible that it is, and possible that it can be even if it isn't. Denying that possibility is denying that it ever existed to be corrupted, whether or not you believe in God.

          Any water from a poisoned well is poison.
          To use your analogy:

          There are many wells. Just because an idea is drawn from one and corrupted, doesn't preclude the same idea being drawn from another. It also doesn't mean that the same idea from another well will be corrupted.

          You also have purification processes, ways to undo corruption. Wells can be reclaimed, and baring that, new wells can be dug.

          You make it sound like because someone pissed in a well 1700 years ago that no one will ever be able to drink pure water anywhere again...

          Comment


          • This whole idea that the evolution of religious belief and understanding is "corruption" is very dubious. Only fundamentalists think like that.

            Also religion and theology in the USA is just one strand of religious debate and the way the debate is played out there is shaped along national lines to do with US history and culture, as it is in every country. You can't extrapolate much from that national debate to the global level.

            Take the King James Bible. It's very important to some Christians in the USA because their forebears brought it with them to the new world as religious refugees. It has a lot of symbolism for some Americans, picked up and popularised by Hollywood, which has nothing to do with theology. Those christians were then largely cut off for generations from biblical scholarship outside the USA, particularly trends in Europe.

            The mainstream view of the KJV bible is it's a beautiful piece of literature but a poor translation of the bible. It's hardly the last word in biblical translation. Most Christian communities both inside and outside the USA have long since moved on from the KJV, except in parts of the USA where it still seems to have a strong following, but mainly as a cultural artefact.

            Google "errors in translation in the King James bible" to see what I mean.
            Last edited by Alexander's Horse; May 9, 2004, 23:05.
            Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

            Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pax Africanus
              Just because you disagre is no reason to label my opinion as B.S.
              I could be absolutely right and you could absolutely wrong.
              well I guess you could say that the roman empire never existed

              and that julius ceaser never existed

              and while yet, you could be absolutely right and I absoltuely wrong

              but I would still label your oppinion as BS, just like I am labeling it here

              when there is archeological evidence against you, than your argument can be labeled as BS

              Jon Miller
              Jon Miller-
              I AM.CANADIAN
              GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

              Comment


              • If I told Jon Miller my deepest secrets before I died. Then he told Aeson only what he could remember and even that was not exactly what I told him then Aeson decided he would write this knowledge down but it did'nt quite make sense to him so he changed it to make sense then he handed this version to Alexander's Horse as the Secrets of Pax. It would be corrupted and since there is no way to go back to the root, there would be no way to correct it.

                I'm definitely not fundamentalist in my views. If anything I believe the bible and any other religous text is probably corrupted to the point where it needs to be thrown out.
                it's not evolution of religous beliefs that I'm talking about. I'm talking about changing documents to fit one's political goals. I'm talking misusing documents to fit one's goals. I'm talking about corruption.

                I chose Emperor Constantine because that is closer than King James to the original words of god. maintaining that this point is still corrupted.
                What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
                What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jon Miller


                  well I guess you could say that the roman empire never existed

                  and that julius ceaser never existed

                  and while yet, you could be absolutely right and I absoltuely wrong

                  but I would still label your oppinion as BS, just like I am labeling it here

                  when there is archeological evidence against you, than your argument can be labeled as BS

                  Jon Miller
                  So you have archeological evidence that the Emperor Constantine NEVER was in a position to tell someone to put anything into the bible. Was an ancient taperecorder found somewhere? I call BULL on your evidence. You have no proof that he did not speak to someone about what he wanted in the bible. His character gives him will. His position gives him power and opportunity.
                  What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
                  What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

                  Comment


                  • we have books of what is considered the Bible now that dates back to 110-150 AD

                    we also have books which people haven't liked overall (like the Gnostic versions (although I do note that the Coptics seem to like them a lot more than the rest of us))

                    if you want to get down to what christianity could be, study those (and a lot of people do)

                    you will find some very different beleifs (and note that common christian beleifs now weren't determined by Constantine, they were already often commonly held before him)

                    every church and every individual should study to determine what they think is right, but your point of correuption is BS (especially the point of purposeful corruption that is still within the church (well some now argue that Paul corrupted christ (like my freshman theology professor) but I think that that is the exception (if it is an exception) that proves the rule))

                    Jon Miller
                    Jon Miller-
                    I AM.CANADIAN
                    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pax Africanus
                      I'm talking about changing documents to fit one's political goals. I'm talking misusing documents to fit one's goals. I'm talking about corruption.
                      Well the far larger problem then is not corruption but selective reading of the text and differences of interpretation. This is not a problem unique to the bible or christianity. This is always a feature of religion because we're talking about very deep ideas. People disagree about them. One person's orthodoxy is another person's corruption.

                      You only have to look at the Gospels themselves. People who were right there when Jesus spoke, eye witnesses, could not agree about what he said or meant. The Apostles couldn't agree and had big arguments amongst themselves. Jesus had to intervene sometimes to explain further or clarify his teachings - his commentary on the parable of the sower being a clear example. So this "corruption" you speak of was always there.

                      Same goes for the old testament. The old testament records religious arguments - like Moses telling the Israelites things and then Israelites arguing about what he meant. The understanding changed over time. Some of those issues have never been resolved. You call that corruption. Another could call it moving to a deeper understanding.

                      As soon as someone moves from a simple faith, and there is nothing wrong with a simple faith, there are no simple answers. And there is nothing sinister about that either, nor is there anything sinister about debating what the scriptures mean and seeking a deeper understanding.
                      Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                      Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                      Comment


                      • It would be corrupted and since there is no way to go back to the root, there would be no way to correct it.
                        This is wrong. Whatever your secrets were, they were obtainable. Whatever you could obtain, someone else could as well. You are not God, and if you were, you could give revelation again to either reform or reconstitute the purity of your word.

                        Comment


                        • The other point about biblical scholarship and theology is that it is always going back to the sources. That's what a lot of the debate is about - being true to the origin.
                          Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                          Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                          Comment


                          • 1. If you make the point that the gnostic version if different from the Catholic version that solidifirs my point.

                            2. It's a preschool trick to form a circle and pass a secret around the circle. The secret never gets back to the source the way it was sent.

                            3. Apply an everyday concept to a historical text and you should come to the same conclusion. If a single truth could be obtained then the scholars that study these facts for years would all come to the same conclusion but they don't. They debate what the facts are. They debate the origin. They can't decide.

                            4. Why would a Politician who would change his religion for political gain not change a text for political gain. Look at the current political gain situation. In a time when it should be hard to get away with twisting words and documents to fit one personal goals it's easy. At that time not everyone knew what was in or had access to a bible. Someone had to tell them what was in there. The best way to control the message is to change the original text. Any sermon from that point would start with words that suit your purpose.

                            5. Ask yourself this question. Would you trust a bible if it was a Politician who was responsible for its creation. President Bush?
                            King James?
                            Margaret Thatcher?
                            Napoleon?
                            Emperor Constantine?
                            Abraham Lincoln?
                            Adolph Hitler?

                            6. All of these people enjoyed a certain amount of popularity among there people but none would I trust to formulate a bible.

                            7. The English formed the Anglican church in response to the power of the catholic church.

                            8. Americans seperated church and to avoid undue influence of the church on government.

                            9. It would be naive to think that Emperor Constantine a person who changed his religion for political gain would not recognize the power of religion and use it to their benefit.
                            What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
                            What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

                            Comment


                            • 2. It's a preschool trick to form a circle and pass a secret around the circle. The secret never gets back to the source the way it was sent.
                              So if the message was "Johnny likes Sally"... and it got around the circle as "I have gum in my hair"... then nobody could ever realize that "Johnny likes Sally" again.

                              That is what you are saying.

                              Comment


                              • If the originator of the message and all the people that knew the truth are dead then the truth will never be known.
                                What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
                                What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X