Christians distracted from worship - Page 6

Hmm,ok...



Nightcrawler

Before Jesus' story came up, humanity could survive, practiced agriculture, fishing, manifacturing and commerce...

Nightcrawler

I don't view sufism nor agnosticism as heretical, it's just not my cup of tea..

Nightcrawler

Indeed, you are right, there is no exact equality, and not even approximate equality most of the time, and that slightly reduces the coincidence, but despite this the coincindence is still huge.

Actually there are three variables, that prevent a monthly eclipse:

1. The earth's rotation around the sun is elliptical with an approximate 3% variation in distance.
2. The moon's rotation around the earth is elliptical with an approximate 14% variation in distance.
3. The path of the moon around the earth, and the path of the earth around the sun, are tilted to each other by a few degrees.

That's why we have annular eclipses only once a year, and total eclipses only once every 18 months, and partial eclipses about every six months..

instead of total eclipses every month.

But that still is a huge coincidence, and for me presonally a sign/hint from God, not a proof, just a hint.

Nightcrawler

P.S.: An interesting thing is that there are also total eclipses of the sun viewable on the moon, where the earth is between the sun and the moon at such a point of time where the apparent sizes of the earth and the sun are nearly equal when viewed from the moon.

Off course you don't.

Nightcrawler

Sure, take my quote out of context and don't answer my question. When is something just RARE and when is it GOD? Do you have a magic coin to flip?

No shit, because they had this wisdom passed down to them in their religious parables - that eventually went on to become the Jesus story.

Neutrinos are generated in very particular nuclear reactions -- most matter doesn't produce substantial neutrinos at nominal temperatures... You need a source, like the sun or a particle accelerator (used in the fermilab experiment) to generate neutrinos. We have difficulties detecting neutrinos and I was wondering last night if there is a three body collision nuclear reaction that we could use to increase the sensitivity of the experiments (I don't expect anyone here to know the answer -- no worries)...

Envision that the three types of neutrinos reach some sort of equilibrium -- most current views are that there is an equal probability of all three types (I don't know if that is true -- but lets assume it is) -- these experiments depend upon the generation (and decay) of ONE type into the two others -- there is going to be a characteristic time period for the system to reach equilibrium and that period should be discernible by setting up a couple of detectors along a path -- it is only possible for us to detect one of the types of neutrinos directly (I think there is a way for us to detect one of the other ones but it is indirectly). Now if you send the path of the neutrinos through something massive this characteristic equilibrium (quantum de-coherence) time should change if the neutrinos are affected by gravity.

I should say that I use the term quantum de-coherence quite literally here, we have a bunch of neutrinos in one form (quantum coherence) and they convert towards their equilibrium distribution (quantum de-coherence)...

That actually is impossible. You cannot have it both ways -- earth having full eclipses where the moon just fits in the sun and the moon having full eclipses where the earth just fits in the sun unless the moon and earth are appreciably the same size... I think the eclipses on the moon are more than full -- as in you cannot see any part of the sun...

Actually, certain elements of the 'Jesus story' could not have been passed down as they were totally original and have no precedent in previous formulations.

Therefore, if they are a fiction then someone at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived invented them - as they form the basis of a coherent philosophical system then all you are saying by saying that Jesus did no exist is that 'someone else existed at the same time who taught exactly the same things and was equally as enlightened a thinker - he just was called by a different name.'

Seems a bit lame to me

Excuse me? Why does it have to be ONE person?

Philosophers and thinkers who create complex new metaphysical systems usually are found to be acting independently albeit disseminating their ideas to a sub-group (such as the disciples).

Doesn't matter really although I am not familiar with any metaphysical ideas that have grown into sophisticated systems that were based on the work of several individuals jointly but perhaps you are.

It matters not.

well, Im not talking about any certain elements, Im specifically talking about the astrology element that existed pre-Jesus and describes the agricultural cycle and why does it appear in the Jesus story.

If you want to provide a link to a certain element you are sure did not exist pre-Jesus, please do, i'll have a look at it.


Do you have evidence for the identity of this mystery teacher? I doubt it, no infact, I know you dont. - and when you consider that the story of Jesus is relayed to us by many people who just happen to contradict and/or expand on earlier writings - who didn't witness an actual physical historical Jesus, and such account was developed over hundreds of years culminating in the Bible cannon some 300+ years after the supposed event, to claim this philosophy was written by one person might be just a bit 'lamer'.

But still, if you need to believe that there was such a person, to justify your life, or to provide the motivation to keep walking the path, thats fine. I'm not really 'down with Jesus' or whatever, just looking to put the story in context.

As far as I can see, the story in its current form started to be formulated around 50BC in Alexandria when some displaced Jews became integrated into a more sophisticated culture, and wanted to syncretize their older wisdom with the newer wisdom of the pagan world, so they re-wrote their Jewish Myths to incorperate the Pagan wisdom. Not by loosing the older story, which is why the OT motifs can be found all over the NT, but by expanding on it.

Of course, if you know better, you could spill the beans?

You are correct in that it existed pre-Chiristianity and in fact it was a major pagan motif.

The reason it appears in the Jesus story is because the Church put it there as part of their process of corrupting the teachings of Jesus and constructing an autocratic hierarchical structure at variance with the teachings of jesus and the beliefs of the disciples.

The amalgamating of pagan and other motifs was a deliberate policy from the fourth century onwards - you can find many examples: Churches situated on ley-lines and major pagan ritual sites, incorporation of fertility symbols into church iconography, mass appropriation of pagan festivals (Jesus alleged birthday for example which was originally January 7th - still is here in Spain), 'saints' being Christianized - the Muslim St George would be a classic example although there are many others.


No need. I think the concept of love generally and the concept of forgiveness and loving your enemies did not exist before Jesus - unless you have some species of link (please God no ).


No - and the reason is because there isn't one and I didn't say there was. I was being vaguely sarcastic and suggesting that this is what you would need to believe if one subscribed to your theory.

Strangely though, you don't seem to believe it yourself which is mildly confusing.


Ho hum. The reason they contradict is because of the reasons above: the Church's policy of altering the teachings and texts. Basically some of the people who were in charge of this operation possessed an intelligent that might be likened to bulbs that are somewhat energy-compliant - and when you factor in that they were most likely proto-fundies avant le lettre I think you'll easily grasp that no more complex explanation is necessary.

Re the eye-witness stuff, clearly Matthew, Mark and Luke are not by any stretch written by someone who was there, I agree. They contradict each other and in the main are based on a previous work (perhaps this may be an eyewitness account but it is unlikely). There is also no doubt that the names of these writers are deliberate fabrications also - in fact the names of the twelve disciples are themselves contradictory in several places.

However, having said all that, there is a strong possibility that John is an eyewitness account and imho it is.


Well, seeing as I do not need such justification then I think it is really the other way round no? It is you who seems to have a need to prove the non-existence of Jesus.

Why I don't know. It is enough for most people to downgrade him from God to some hapless hippy a la Life of Brian but you seem to have a psychological need to take it a step further. Why is that do you think?


I disagree with this analysis. There is no link between the OT and the NT apart from two factors:

1) Jesus consciously referenced himself to OT prophecy. This is an argument against Christianity btw as it shows he saw himself in a Judaic context (perhaps even as the Messiah) rather than as a new Founder of another religion.

2) The proto-fundies and text-corrupters I mentioned above segued the two for the same reasons as outlined above: ie create a power base by amalgamation rather than confrontation.

Put simply, to establish a religious ruling Empire you have to do one of two things:

1) Defeat all other religions and beliefs or suppress them to make serious inroads into their power-base.

Or

2) Convince them all you are no threat because you are saying the same as them and are a manifestation of the same tradition (even if you are the opposite).

TIn a nutshell, that is why Christianity (ie NOT the original teaching of Christ) as promulgated by the Church has incorporated pagan elements. Here is a brief list:

1) Trinity = Triune Moon Goddess
2) Noah's story = directly from Gilgamesh
3) Three Wise Men = Amalgamation of Zoroastrianism
4) Virgin Mary = yawn......and so on.......

Actually I can't be bothered - you do it.....


No.

Ah ha, AT BLOODY LAST!!! Of course, how can I answer any of these points when it is near impossible to fathom what context you are speaking in today? Now I could attempt to answer the questions as they are literally written, but then I'll make myself an idiot because i know they aren't questions about the literal. So all have a chuckle at me - im sure you're LOL!!!


But the problem we have now, is that what of the NT is of 'authentic' Jesus and what is of corruption. But there is the problem, eventually one discovers it is all corruption, yet at the same time in a different context it is all true. So how am I supposed to know what context you are talking in to claim some such events are corrupted while some are true, when both are right?



This all exists in Plato, thats 400 years before. What however was new is that Jews finally caught up to the Pagan world. So this teaching was new to them.

Of course thats assuming we are talking about a historical 33AD Jesus, which you then rule out in your next sentance.


I agree, there isn't one,


why you think I would need to believe in one if I subscribe to the theory that the Jesus story is an evolution of an astrological archetype that goes all the way back to pre-history is beyond me. You'd better explain.


Yes, but as human understanding of Gods wisdom is continually evolving, why would that altering texts be a bad thing?



An eyewitness acount of what though? how can you have an eyewitness account of a spirituality?



Maybe its because im the anti-Christ?



I disagree, I think a large part of the NT has the same motifs as the OT. They are just expanded on and told differently. Jesus is just a greek translation of Joshua, which was obviously the language of the NT writers - therefore the Jesus meme is running around in the OT. And when you have the might of the Roman Army about to banish you from the face of the Earth, either your Joshua makes an appearance, or your entire prophecy is a lie.




Nah, no one listens to us anyway.



Its Ok, I understand why you wont.

Just wondering Sego, in your opinion what part of this puzzle am I still missing?

You are off course absolutely right, in the total eclipse of the sun, seen from the moon, the earth has off course a bigger apparent size than the sun. There is still a corona seeable, just not the inner corona, it's the outer corona.

What an embarrassing oversight on my part.

But then that's what a hypothesis should be, falsifiable, and this one has been striken down pretty quickly.

Nightcrawler

But that was the perfect answer for you. You off course don't see God anywhere, cause you don't want to see. It's like everyone just sees what he is inclined to accept.

I for one view not just the rare things as being from God, but everything, the very and complete universe, its continuing functioning, its structures, systems and laws, the life on this planet and maybe elsewhere,too, the numerous "wonders" that happen every day, so that we as humans have mostly grewn accustomed to them that we overlook them, from the air that we breath and that puts a pressure on us, to the blood and air in us that counters that pressure and keeps us balanced, to the eyes that we have to see, to the ears to hear, to the brain to understand... to the rain from the clouds to the sun-rays from the sky, that both fall on the land with its minerals and semen that give birth to trees, flowers, vegetables and fruits, to the salty sea with its yet mostly undiscovered sea-life, to the tides, to the non-salty-rivers, to the reproduction of us, where we develop from a bit of sperm combining with an egg, and grow and form to a full human being, and when born continue to grow and develop... it's just too much to list..

but that's where you can see God, if you are inclined to.

Agnostic people though mostly think that just because we can now scientifically describe these "wonders", is the same as understanding why they happen, and therefore can easily exclude God from them.

That's why they want to see God in unusual "wonders", that don't happen daily around them, preferably "wonders" that can't be described scientifically, like for example an angel appearing and raising dead people to life again...

But even if that happened you would have to make sure that you don't have just gone insane, after the joint-session, yesterday evening...


Nightcrawler

Why are you right in the absence of evidence (aside from you wanting to see god in everything)?

I think this is fundamentally flawed.

As you imply, in a religious sense everything is God and God is visible everywhere.

The posters who you are disagreeing with do not subscribe to this view in a religious sense but what you see as 'God' they invariably regard with an equal sense of 'wonder' as you do.

In fact, the scientists and rationalists I have known personally have a far greater sense of wonder at the universe and 'creation' than the religious people I know. The latter seem in some way less embracing of life also curiously but perhaps this is just my experience.

In any event, you must admit that you cannot possibly know God and that all you conceive of Him must invariably be wrong.

How then can you argue about what He is or is not?

Perhaps it is not about words but feelings and perhaps the feelings of someone who denies God's existence are more in tune with the reality of the universe than those who conceive of 'God' in a structured and limited way.

Agreed. Words cannot describe the awe and wonder I feel when I think about the vast beauty of the universe. I just don't call it god.

I think the church developed the trinity-model in order to explain the four gospels without letting polytheism crawling in through the backdoor. The Arian-conflict was the motivation to do so. According to the Arius, the gospels described Jesus as being the Son of God, but since being created in time, not equal to God, so Jesus being a lesser god than God...

As to Noah's story and Gilgamesh, I think that the Gilgamesh-epos is a pagan interpretation of Noah's story, and not the other way around.

Nightcrawler

I'm not claiming I'm right. That would mean I would have 100%-proof, which I haven't.

But just as I can't claim to be right, so neither can atheists, and that's the point I want to stress.

From that point on, only faith remains in either direction, or indifference.

Nightcrawler

Which would be strange seeing as the Gilgamesh epic is currently regarded as the oldest story on earth - ie around 2750 BCE.

By contrast Genesis is dated to the 1450's at the outside and is widely regarded as being significantly earlier.

I don't think that what is around us, is actually God, and therefore directly visible, but it's there to remind us of Him.





I'm not viewing the world as God either, but I don't stop at just the "wondering"-phase, instead I, as all scientists do, try to understand the very characteristics, regularities, systems and laws that can describe as much of the reality with as less assumptions as possible.

On top of that I'm fully aware, that nothing can come out of nothing, and that the very characteristics, systems and laws can't be a coincidence, and that there must be something that keeps the world functioning from second to second, and that's the religious side of me.






I'm not sure, one can generalise anything in that regard. Actually I know quite a lot agnostic/atheistic scientists, that are leading a pretty boring life, whose souls are quite "inward-oriented"...
Religious people usually only refrain from activities, that involve adulterous practices or criminal activities..


I don't know anything about God, that much should be clear, He is a complete mystery, but I believe that He created all this, and keeps it going on.. and I find for this belief confirmation/justification both in science and religion.


I don't trust feelings in gaining truth, that's why I'm not a sufi.

Nightcrawler

It may be the oldest written story on earth, but hardly the oldest told story.

I think the whole flood-story (I don't think it was a global one, but it must have been pretty big, maybe covering all of Mesopotamien) with Noah happened before the Gilgamesh-epos was written, and the polytheists later on heard from the story, and wrote it down according to their own polytheistic worldview.

Nightcrawler

Surely in Islamic theology this is not correct? In the final analysis nothing exists except God or, put it another way, how can there be anything existing except God?

As you know, in Islam, to set up an equal to God is the sin of shirk and of course the Shahada states that 'there is no god except God' which as you know may be translated also as 'there is no reality except God (or reality)'.


I do not view the world as God either - that would be shirk. I would say that the world is unreal or a form of illusion and therefore in a certain sense does not exist. Only God exists.

Perhaps it is more correct to say we do not understand the world and see it incorrectly therefore what we see is false.


Well that is the illusion I mentioned above. It is an illusion because it is not really that way - God always existed and always will with no beginning and no end. This is the truth but we cannot perceive it - we perceive things as having beginnings and ends - all these things are illusory. Only God is real in this sense.



Yes, just my personal experience.


Yes, I am in the same boat. I know nothing either. I guess that's why we need humility - I don't have it unfortunately.

I don't have a very good opinion of islamic theology, most of it is pure bs in my eyes...

Just because God is omnipotent, and always present, doesn't mean that God can't create something that is not part of Himself, and it surely doesn't mean that the created thing is a god, just because of its existence..

To be qualified as God, it would have to be able to create something out of nothing on its own, and be completely independent in its existence.






I can see the route you have taken to reach that conclusion, but I don't agree. I think the world is real, and that's what makes God's creation so magnificant, because it is no illusion but real, although depending on God for its creation, and continued functioning.


In a sense we aren't really seeing reality, but only what our senses and understanding is perceiving, but we can perceive relations, comparisons and similarities, and therefore can develop an approximation to reality.


I wouldn't go as far as to say we know nothing, but I would agree that we know only little about God, and quite a bit more, but still little, about this world.

Nightcrawler

Going beyond this, (I think I generally get your experiment)
I was thinking today about what it might mean for neutrinos to have mass.

What we have in stars is a very localised mass that effects spacetime like Einsteins warped sheet as we know, but, apart from the light given off, and things like supernovae, actually now we know stars are radiating mass into the universe on a grand scale in all directions, so what this means is that from the quantum uncertainty in the big bang, which got spread out during inflation, to cause mass to clump together to make the stars etc, the stars are expending this mass back to a very similar state to which it all started in.

If in billions of billions of years time all the mass has averaged itself out, it will actually look like the singularity it came from.

Perhaps you could say, if this scenario were to occur, where mass is equalized across the whole expanse of the universe, what does that mean for the fate of it?

It will collide with another brane and the whole thing will start over.

Fervent atheists can't. Default atheists can. That's the real the point.

If Jesus would have been killed on an electric chair instead of a cross, would people wear little electric chairs around their necks? and kiss them?

Probably.

And would they have supported the death penalty for him anyway? Even more probably.

Jesus was essentially a terrorist and was executed for challenging the ruling government and status quo (not the group - opposing them is a good thing).

Christians always support their own ruling government on the State level - especially in regard to threats such as people like Jesus would pose - they might be either Dem or Rep (overwhelmingly though they are right-wing and reactionary) but one thing they always support is the concept of government itself and hence the laws it passes and upholds with regard to dealing with perceived enemies.

The only exceptions to this are in relation to 'other people's governments'.

He was a 'terrorist' from the pov of the Jewish and Roman ruling power structure both of whom saw him as a threat.

Of course he was not really a terrorist in the sense he utilized violence - but he was someone who espoused a doctrine which if it was followed would mean the end of the power structure of the day - same today actually.

Terrorist was a bad word. I retract. Let's say revolutionary instead.

What I mean is I have yet to hear a Christian calling for change of the system of government in a western nation.

Under Communism, yes. But in the west there is an assumption that our system has something to do with God and cannot be questioned.

Are fat people, the wealthy, Dick Cheney, GW and so on unchristian then? They obviously can not inherit the earth, it's in god's will. How can a christian vote for a party that believes financial gain is the salvation to everything????
The only violent act of JC was directed at money!!
(no similarities to world trade center destruction...)

Me thinks there are far two many people who take pride in calling themselves Christians and defending the label, than there are people who accept the words of Christ.

Christ didn't come to make people Christians, he came to tell you something.

To accept Christ is not becoming a Christian, it is accepting Christ.

Even an Athiest like me can accept Christ. That doesn't make me a Christian. Infact to accept Christ makes you less able to accept a label like Christianity.

Oh and while I remember -

"God is the highest principle"

Nope. To state such is to define an imaginary limit under delusion to the extents of your thoughts.