What religion/non-religion are you a member of and Why?

[Ben Kenobi]

Still, the people who wrote the Gospels probably didn't know Jesus. Even if they did, all great thinkers have been greatly misunderstood, so I wouldn't be surprised if they got a lot of stuff wrong.

True. However, it seems more likely to me that those living 100 years after the event would know much more than we do.

Also, consider that John who wrote his Gospel is the disciple who Christ loved. So you have his firsthand testimony.

For the Gospel writers who were not among the 12, Mark and Luke, they wrote close enough to the date such that they could obtain eyewitness testimony from those who were among the 12. Historians do this all the time, and this is often a credit to their reliability, rather than a debit.

Mark was written first.

According to whom? When do they assert that Mark was written?

There are many scholars who assert that Matthew came first.

The others were written later, and the beliefs were changing. My guess is that hell wasn't too big of a deal when Mark was written, but as time passed it became a central part of the religion and the later 3 included it in there.

Again, when do they say the Gospels were written?

It is more probable that the Gospels are similar to what Christ said, but they probably got a lot wrong.

So given this, one has no other option but to trust the Gospels moreso than your own opinion. For if you were to make changes, how do you know that you are actually improving things? You could be taking out the parts that are correct, and increasing the error.

Because that is what one does when looking at historical sources. I have been prioritizing Mark because it was the first.

How do you know this? Many others assert Matthew came first.

When a central part of the religion didn't even make it into the first gospel, it makes me think that that belief came later, after *** was written.

There are no references to Hell in Mark?

I suggest you read the Gospel again.

Mark 9:42-50

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. nd if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where

" 'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.'

Everyone will be salted with fire.

"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

[johncmcleod]

True. However, it seems more likely to me that those living 100 years after the event would know much more than we do.

Also, consider that John who wrote his Gospel is the disciple who Christ loved. So you have his firsthand testimony.

For the Gospel writers who were not among the 12, Mark and Luke, they wrote close enough to the date such that they could obtain eyewitness testimony from those who were among the 12. Historians do this all the time, and this is often a credit to their reliability, rather than a debit.

I still Jesus was such a great thinker and so radical that the disciples misinterpreted him, and like Buddha claimed him to be God.

According to whom? When do they assert that Mark was written?

There are many scholars who assert that Matthew came first.

Since the late 19th century, it is almost accepted as fact that Mark came first. The main reason is because when two of the three synoptics shared a story, it was always Mark and Matthew or Mark and Luke.

Again, when do they say the Gospels were written?

Mark was written first, and he got some of his stuff from a book of Jesus quotations that we call Q, for quelle (we haven't found it though), which means source in German. The other synoptics came later and used these two sources.

So given this, one has no other option but to trust the Gospels moreso than your own opinion. For if you were to make changes, how do you know that you are actually improving things? You could be taking out the parts that are correct, and increasing the error.

And that passage you quoted, again it was Gehenna. he was saying it would be better to enter the kingdom of God (and as for the kingdom of God, that comes from the Greek word basileia, and there is a whole history behind that word and it doesn't even mean heaven, it could also mean kingliness) without feet than to be thrown into Gehenna with both. What he is saying is that it is better to be physically deformed and have God's kingliness (notice I didn't say heaven, in heaven there are no hands and feet, that is why I don't think he was talking about heaven) than to not be physically deformed but be like the sinners. So I interpret the passage as it is better to be a moral and spiritual person without good worldy traits (such as having feet) than to have the worldy traits but be a sinner and sacrifice children in Gehenna.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. I believe Christ found enlightenment but couldn't understand it and therefore claimed to be God.

Then that casts doubts to all of his teachings. If he can be wrong about his divinity, why not the rest?

Or he was such a brilliant thinker that he believed himself to be divine.

If I believed myself to be divine, would you call me brilliant or foolish?

Or he didn't claim to be God, but his contemporaries misunderstood him and deified him, just as Buddha's contemporaries did to Buddha.

Fair enough. However, you are left to come up with a plausable counter to their account of the resurrection. For the disciples themselves, lost all hope in Christ in his death, and it was not until his resurrection, did they finally understand.

The reason I am skeptical is because people claim a lot of stuff when it deals with God, and I don't see why Christ is right and everyone else is wrong. If Joseph Smith can believe God spoke to him, it is just as likely for Jesus to believe God spoke to him and told him he was the messiah.

This is why Christ 'pulled a Jonah' in the resurrection, to prove his claim to be God, rather than just a prophet.

First off, he might not have claimed to be God.

All accounts we have say he did.

Second off, even if he did, it doesn't mean he is insane. Mohhamed claimed God spoke to him. Joseph Smith said the same. Buddha claimed to be enlightened. Were any of those people insane?

First of all, there is a difference between the two claims. For one to claim that God has spoken to him, is obviously less insane than someone who claims to be God. Just ask many of the others on this forum.

If Christ is wrong, then he is very wrong. If he is right, then his claims take priority over Mohammed, and Buddha.

And the reason I accept some of his teachings is because I like them. When he says the greatest commandment is to treat others as you would like to be treated, I think to myself, "He is right."

But what about the first of his commandments, to love the Lord God, with all your heart, mind, soul and strength?

Because Christ had some great, new revolutionary ideas that I have studied since I was young and shape the way I think. And these ideas are so great that everyone should take a look at them. That's what I have been doing.

Very cool.

I don't agree with everything he says though. But a lot of his teachings were great and I agree with them. I don't need him, but I am glad his ideas are still around because some of them are great and if the whole world followed them (such as treat others as you would like to be treated) we'd be better off.

So why would the world be better off for following the second of his commandments and rejecting the first?

If Christ is right, that we can be rewarded in heaven, what good does it do to love your neighbour only to see him suffer in Hell?

Because man created this idea of God, so they saw God as themselves. The great thing about eastern religions is they don't always see God as a person.

Is it because they see that God must be beyond personhood?

If this is the answer you are looking for, you won't find it in Buddhism.

The only ones who have any thing that touches this idea, are the Christians, in their Trinity.

First off, we can't be sure that Chirst did.

We can be more sure that Christ said this than anything said of Buddha.

Second off, so what if Christ did? Buddha claimed to be enlightened. He thought he had reached a state different from all of mankind. Same with Jesus. So I believe that there is no reason to believe one is more right than the other. And I believe they both reached the same state, they were on a higher spiritual plane and they interpreted it in different ways.

There is a big difference from reaching a state of enlightenment and being God himself.

Christ claimed, that he saw Abraham, that he knew Abraham, even though as Jesus of Nazareth, he could not have lived with him on Earth.

He's claiming something well beyond enlightenment, but to be God himself.

Buddha says that everyone can attain such enlightenment. Christ rejects the idea that we can reach parity with him.

When I was talking about God appearing as man, I wasn't talking about God coming down to earth as Jesus. I was talking about him looking like a man.

Where does scripture, in the OT or the NT say that YHWH looks like a man?

And God didn't give man the task of stewardship.

According to Genesis, he does. You may reject this concept, but you cannot do so, and still hold that any religion is transcendent. If you say that Christianity is man-made, than so is Buddhism.

Gen 1:26-30

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

[johncmcleod]

I will write again maybe tomorrow. Right now I am burned out posting on Apolyton.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's fine.

I'm still catching up to your mammoth post.

[Sava]

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant

so BK, are you FOR legalization of marijuana?

[Ben Kenobi]

He taught some radical ideas that undermined the authority of the Jewish religion, so the elders had him killed.

What did they charge him with? They charged him with blasphemy. This charge seems more suited to the claim of divinity, not radicalism.

Every religions says this. Even Confucius had a quote exactly like the golden rule.

Confucious phrases this in the negative. Do not do unto others as you would not want done to you. Which is my point. Christianity has the rule of doing unto others, which the others do not.

The levels of happiness are this: pleasure is the first, then success (fame, wealth, power, social status, etc.) and service to others, and the top level of happiness is joy, being, and knowledge. Infinite joy, infinite being, infinite knowledge are all achieved by connecting with Brahmin or achieving Nirvana.

Okay. So how can one be joyful, without being an individual?

I left the Greek version of that passage at school. When I get it back on monday, I'll show you the passage and why it can be interpreted as not being hell.

I'm not a scholar of Greek. Love to be able to do this sort of stuff, but that costs money.

[quote]
I'm not sure about the metaphysics. maybe we have a soul, and depending on how mature the soul gets in our lifetime, that determines in what organism it reincarnates. Or maybe that isn't the case. What do you mean by suffer as we do? If you can connect with God, than you won't be suffering and life won't be great.

Even though one is with God, does not prevent one from suffering here on Earth. Otherwise, why do believers suffer at all?

Again, damning people hurts them. It doesn't help them at all. It is punishment without rehabilitation, and because it is eternal, people can't learn from their mistakes. You just take a bad person and then you make them suffer forever. It causes no good, only bad.

Why should they be treated otherwise? Rehabilitation on Earth is necessary because we are not perfect Judges. We cannot read hearts. God can. God is the perfect justice, so why should he not bar the unrepentant from Heaven?

We all labour under the same struggles. So why should those who reject God, be rewarded when those who accept him, and suffer, receive the same? It makes no sense. If our time here on Earth, and our conduct means anything, then our disobedience should also face punishment.

Hence the pentecost. According to Christian belief, the holy spirit came and inspired the apostles to do great works. And according to their belief, when Jesus says he is coming back, he is telling them that he will have a second coming. Neither of these things say God divinely intervenes in our world.

But the Holy Spirit is God. Therefore for the Holy Spirit to work on us, is the same as God's intervention on the world.

Maybe if you kill yourself, you soul just merely is reincarnated into another human body and still suffers. Maybe the greatest punishment of this hell that we live in is that we don't know it is hell. If we knew it is hell, we'd accept it. But we don't, and we think this life isn't hell, so it makes it more painful. I'm not claiming this is the truth, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Lame pun intended.

If this is hell, then how can there be a loving God? We had no choice but to be born.

[Ben Kenobi]

so BK, are you FOR legalization of marijuana?

Read on.

...for food.

[Sava]

you can eat marijuana you know...

brownies!

[Sava]

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed

I wonder if he's talking about.... nahhhhhhhh

But regardless BK, if you believe God created the Earth, then God created marijuana for us. What's wrong with enjoying what God has given us?

[Ben Kenobi]

But regardless BK, if you believe God created the Earth, then God created marijuana for us. What's wrong with enjoying what God has given us?

Anything good to us, given by God, can be abused by us.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Anything good to us, given by God, can be abused by us.

so what's wrong with moderate marijuana use? that's not abuse...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Baptised Lutheran, Confirmed United Church of Christ

Currently member of UCC. I like the church I belong to they are an open and affirming congregation with more than half the congregation consisting of same sex refugees from Southern Baptist churches.

[Ben Kenobi]

so what's wrong with moderate marijuana use? that's not abuse...

What is proper marijuana use? To smoke and get high?

[Ben Kenobi]

I like the church I belong to they are an open and affirming congregation with more than half the congregation consisting of same sex refugees from Southern Baptist churches.

I'll bet the Southern Baptists consider that to be a fair trade.

Their 'open' folks for your 'closed' ones.