Meditation? - Page 3

milesteg · 05-07-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by SinsChampion

Here we go paragraph by paragraph:
1 - yes, they would leave whatever organized religion they were in before - for reasons we both have covered and agree with each other on.

Agreed

2 - Actually take the time to read it again, miles. Time after time, Jesus specifically spoke on "loving your brother" etc. - which seems to me to be within the lines of harmonious existence, not with nature and the world around you, but with others - (why else would he have an entire sermon espousing the virtues of being meek, merciful, peacemakers, pure in heart etc.). Regarding your point of him being a apocalyptic prophet, point out a specific example of him stating clearly that the end of the world was coming soon, please.

Matthew 16:28 ( and i reread all of matthew just there to find it, and I grant, the lessons jesus teaches are quaint) Also he says something similar in (i think) Mark. Someone asks when judgement day will come and Jesus says "Before all of your hair turns gray."

Additionally, I would argue against labeling him as a demagogue. Demagoguery tends to lend itself to speaking out and pointing out other's faults without prompting. Most every instance (I'm almost sure EVERY instance, but for safety's sake...) of his preaching is predicated by others asking questions. He may have on occasion led the questioning, sure, but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere did he volunteer the lessons without prompting.

I personally associate no such negative connotations with demagoguery and don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Just putting Jesus into context. AKA when he said whatever he said it wasn't for YOUR benefit, it was for jews in 1B.C. living in Israel.

3 - Most of his parables ARE good ones, and yes there are definitely examples of similar parables in other cultures of antiquity. Did he lift them directly?? That's tough to say one way or the other. The transfer of information back then was rather difficult - language and travel barriers - but not impossible. However, I would argue that it is rather short-sighted and does a disservice to various cultures world-wide, to assume that a valuable lesson could only have occurred to one ethnic group of people. That is, if a parable was told by Aesop in Greece, do you really truly think that the same lesson was never taught in Babylon or Persepolis??? Highly doubtful.

A lot of the bible, especially the new testament, especially pertaining to jesus, has been lifted nearly word for word from previous greek sources. Why greek? The bible was written in Greek. Greek was the written language of the area, if you were educated then you knew how to read and write Greek. Which means whoever wrote the bible, must have had an education in the Greek classics. The bible rips off a lot from Zoroastrianism, Summerianism, Buddhism and Hinduism as well but since those sources are not in Greek the literal translation isn't as strong.

but that being said you're kind of making the point I'm about to make...

4 - When I said blueprint for life, I meant exactly that. For interpersonal relations, there is not a more complete and better written set of guidelines in existence. When you say that it was good only for nomadic semitic peoples roaming the desert, I have to honestly wonder which specific passages you were referring to. Absolutely, positively, none of the guidelines espoused by him fit the description you give.

Okay, the old testament is literally 90% roaming through the dessert. It's like Lord of the Rings substituting a Dessert for a Forrest, just wandering, wandering wandering, and all their diety laws reflect that. Basic bronze age food preservation techniques.

But since we're discussing Jesus here specifically I'll keep it to the 4 Gospels, and the Acts. Now forgetting that all Jesus did was WANDER THROUGH THE DESSERT, all he does is tell a bunch of stories about agriculture and common sense idioms. Sure, I'll be the first to say there is some genuine philosophy in Jesus teachings. But it's philosophy that is predicated upon the idea of their not only being A god, but that the God is the God of the Jews and not only that but Jesus is speaking through HIS(god's) authority rather than from a place of logic or jurisprudence.

And now you might say "Well a lot of different authors/philosophers/poets wrote from a perspective of theism, should we chuck all of their work too?" And to answer that, no. But we do view them in that perspective. Jesus makes for some fine reading material, but only in context.

Now, I would absolutely agree with you that you have to be especially careful when sifting through the lessons to rid them of ideas that were societal-specific. Odds are very good that in the doing you will lose most of the good stuff in there. But as you well know, it is the actual work of studying the information that makes any intellectual pursuit worthwhile.

No....the payoff makes the intellectual pursuit worthwhile, well for me. If that wasn't the case I'd spend my time reading through internet fan fiction and watching the High School the Musical movies and making up my own language..but if someone did those things we'd say they WASTED their lives because quite frankly, as human beings we more highly value pursuits that garner us what we want in the real world, be it money, happiness, peace, what have you. Spending my time studying Robin Hood or Batman would never lend itself to my growth or the accomplishment of any other goals.

And this brings me to my greater over-all point. We've discussed how similar parables to Jesus' teachings exist all over the world in several different forms from Huckleberry Finn to Gilgamesh. If we're just looking for random fables why not teach Robin Hood or Batman during Sundays? The lessons are all basically the same but at least Batman takes place in the current world and you don't need a translation or a lesson from a bedowan farmer to understand it.

Why keep going back to just one Jewish guy named Josh, especially when his lessons aren't especially original or rare, and even more especially when it drags along this theology and bible that reads like a hatred manual against Gays, Women and Non-Jews and butts direct heads with our modern understandings of science and physics??

If you want to sit there and declare that Jesus either was GOD or was from GOD or had any authority pertaining to GOD then this will very quickly become a different sort of discussion. Just saying, on it's own merits the bible FAILS as a good blueprint for life when compared to such newer works as Huckleberry Finn, The Idiot, The Once and Future King, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe(which in fact IS the story of jesus retold for children, wonder if anyone knew that).

Hell fucking Star Wars is just as good as Jesus and the Bible...but I submit, I think Star Trek is superior. A society based on Star Trek would be far more utopian than one based on the blueprint laid out by Jesus...and for everyone too, not just Jewish Men.

SinsChampion · 05-07-2009, 11:02 AM

Rebuttal time!!!

matthew 16:28 (in the translation I happened to look up)actually says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom". I would venture that he is specifically speaking of the resurrection.

You are right, he was speaking to his audience, as any good speaker would, but there is plenty to be gleaned from it today.

yes most of the new testament was written in greek (to the best of our knowledge - there is a movement that claims Matthew, Mark and John were written in Aramaic). however, in multiple places the greek text is unclear -especially within "direct quotes" from jesus. This is because he spoke Aramaic, not greek, and it is somewhat widely held as a belief among serious scholars that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from an Aramaic source normally referred to as Q, but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. Scholars of all stripes have had to acknowledge the presence of scattered, Aramaic expressions, transliterated and then translated.
That being said, of course the end product was written in greek, and of course some of the "color commentary" as it were would be highly similar to other greek works. you write to your audience.

If you only take Jesus' words in context and don't try to extrapolate them to today's life, then why bother with the words of Buddha, Zoraster or Mohammed either? I would venture that it is the responsiblity of thinking individuals to glean knowledge and inspiration in whatever form it presents itself, adjusting it to the current situation as needed.

In regards to pay-off vs. the work itself as the benefit, i might have misspoke slightly. If you put enough actual work into studying worthwhile information, the payoff is inherent. If you study comic books, the payoff will be knowledge about Batman et al., it is dependant on the subject matter. But I digress. The lessons aren't necessarily original or rare, true, but does that make it any less worthwhile? I respectfully suggest that if what he had to say was so unoriginal and uninspiring, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. There is a reason why so many people feel that his teachings are relevant today, and nobody (in a comparitive sense) knows who Zoraster is. You can argue that it is due to a world-class propaganda campaign, but I would think that you would realize that propaganda only works for so long. 2000 years is a loong time for anything to survive in the public consciousness, especially if it is utter bullshit.

milesteg · 05-07-2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by SinsChampion

You are right, he was speaking to his audience, as any good speaker would, but there is plenty to be gleaned from it today.

I was just stating that if you're to believe Jesus own words he expected judgement day within say 100 years of his death.

That being said, of course the end product was written in greek, and of course some of the "color commentary" as it were would be highly similar to other greek works. you write to your audience.

Yeah, it's not just Hebrews either it's everywhere where there is an oral tradition, cadence, works, rhymes, all of it was picked up and appropriated different ways by town criers and story tellers.

If you only take Jesus' words in context and don't try to extrapolate them to today's life, then why bother with the words of Buddha, Zoraster or Mohammed either?

Well you shouldn't unless you're just looking to wile away a Saturday afternoon with some light reading. But one probably shouldn't base one's life or the lives of one's family around Zoraster, Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus or Moses.

I would venture that it is the responsiblity of thinking individuals to glean knowledge and inspiration in whatever form it presents itself, adjusting it to the current situation as needed.

Well yeah but we're back to the Batman question, why not just read Batman? It's more entertaining, more easily accessible and more universal than 2000 year old similar folk tales and mythology?

In regards to pay-off vs. the work itself as the benefit, i might have misspoke slightly. If you put enough actual work into studying worthwhile information, the payoff is inherent. If you study comic books, the payoff will be knowledge about Batman et al., it is dependant on the subject matter.

I wouldn't necessarily put THAT stipulation on it. Because who is to say what is worthwile or not? I'm sure girls think High School The Musical is worthwhile. I would say that the work itself is benefit when it can be translated into success in other areas of one's life.

But I digress. The lessons aren't necessarily original or rare, true, but does that make it any less worthwhile? I respectfully suggest that if what he had to say was so unoriginal and uninspiring, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. There is a reason why so many people feel that his teachings are relevant today, and nobody (in a comparitive sense) knows who Zoraster is. You can argue that it is due to a world-class propaganda campaign, but I would think that you would realize that propaganda only works for so long. 2000 years is a loong time for anything to survive in the public consciousness, especially if it is utter bullshit.

I hope you'll forgive me the indulgence of coming off REALLY arrogant but sadly I don't think I can phrase the following in any other light.

Yes. The fact that there's nothing original or rare in Christianity/The Bible/Jesus does make it less worthwhile. Especially to someone pursuing life's deeper questions.

Jesus is very basic in his understandings and conclusions. If a student of philosophy or comparative culture or even comparative religion of today came across the bible he'd find nothing special or new in it's pages.

The reason Christianity has survived for 2000 years is not becase of the value of it's pages. Let's not forget that until around the middle of the twentieth century your average layman was illiterate and that before the Protestant Revolution the bible was only written or taught in Latin, a dead language to your everyman. It has survived because it won the lottery of being the one monotheistic faith adopted by the Roman Empire. And that was only do to bloodshed, wars, politics, trade and arranged marraige, not due to some overwhelming acceptance of it's inherent teachings.

For 2000 years they burnt most any other book they could and if you look now, that we have the internet, public libraries, amazon.com and so forth, now that the bible has competition ppl are running from it like the plague. We've already decried earlier that modern christians barely even READ the thing.

And no one teaches "Hey come to my church, read the bible, it's the best blueprint for life." What they say is "Come to my church or you'll burn in hell."

And that's been the entire "appeal" of the bible for 2000 years, believe or burn in hell.

And it's not like it's some harmless "OH just let grandma say her prayers" sorta pet peeve. People die every day over religion. Jews, Buddhist, Christians, Muslims are all dying or oppressing or ruining their kids lives all because not enough ppl with sense and bravery are there to stand up and say "The emporer is wearing no clothes! These religions aren't from god, they're from men and they suck! Not one of them is worth giving your life over to."

I used to think "Well lookit all those happy Mormon families, the book of Mormon sure is bullshit but it must be doing something right." But then I did a little research into what it's REALLY like to be a Mormon, especially if you don't fit in, especially if you don't agree with their church leaders, and they're just as cruel, vile, hypocritical and evil as the rest of the religions out there. They're just better at keeping the mask on in public.

SinsChampion · 05-07-2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by milesteg

I was just stating that if you're to believe Jesus own words he expected judgement day within say 100 years of his death.

I suppose this is subject to interpretation of his words, then. I don't think he was referring to the actual destruction of the entire world. Remember, Jerusalem was destroyed less than 50 years after jesus death, by the Romans. There's a lot of leeway in the interpretation, here.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Yeah, it's not just Hebrews either it's everywhere where there is an oral tradition, cadence, works, rhymes, all of it was picked up and appropriated different ways by town criers and story tellers.

Very much so.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Well you shouldn't unless you're just looking to wile away a Saturday afternoon with some light reading. But one probably shouldn't base one's life or the lives of one's family around Zoraster, Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus or Moses.

Any particular reason why not?? Good advice is good advice, no matter the source.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Well yeah but we're back to the Batman question, why not just read Batman? It's more entertaining, more easily accessible and more universal than 2000 year old similar folk tales and mythology?

I would say that batman, when compared to religious texts, is lacking in a certain depth.

Originally Posted by milesteg

I wouldn't necessarily put THAT stipulation on it. Because who is to say what is worthwile or not? I'm sure girls think High School The Musical is worthwhile. I would say that the work itself is benefit when it can be translated into success in other areas of one's life.

Fair enough, but as far as your analogy goes - it IS worthwhile, for that person, in that instant. Worth is a very personal thing, we all put different values on different things. Who knows, in 30 years, maybe the generation that loves the Jonas brothers and High School Musical uses whatever they may have gotten out of it productively. Doubtful, but theoretically possible.

Originally Posted by milesteg

I hope you'll forgive me the indulgence of coming off REALLY arrogant but sadly I don't think I can phrase the following in any other light.

Yes. The fact that there's nothing original or rare in Christianity/The Bible/Jesus does make it less worthwhile. Especially to someone pursuing life's deeper questions.

This is back to the individual's estimation of worth. Many people have used his teachings as a starting point for the pursuit of life's deeper questions, and have not come away dissapointed.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Jesus is very basic in his understandings and conclusions. If a student of philosophy or comparative culture or even comparative religion of today came across the bible he'd find nothing special or new in it's pages.

This I would argue against. The old testament is a history, basically - it is what it is. The latter half of the new testament is an espousement of the teachings of Jesus - interpretation at its finest. The gospels themselves, however, while chock full of the basic moralistic teachings that can be found in other places, DO have one thing that seperates them from the pack. The ending. Other stories have similar tales of death and resurrection, but NEVER with similar motives behind it. I can't think of a single instance of the tragic hero voluntarily handing themselves over in as complete a fashion. Sacrificing themselves for a person (or small grouop of people), sure. But not in this fashion.

Originally Posted by milesteg

The reason Christianity has survived for 2000 years is not becase of the value of it's pages. Let's not forget that until around the middle of the twentieth century your average layman was illiterate and that before the Protestant Revolution the bible was only written or taught in Latin, a dead language to your everyman. It has survived because it won the lottery of being the one monotheistic faith adopted by the Roman Empire. And that was only do to bloodshed, wars, politics, trade and arranged marraige, not due to some overwhelming acceptance of it's inherent teachings.

True, to an extant. It was given an absolute headstart in the survival game by Constantine, sure. But why would he convert to a religion that was all but anethema at the time (and yes, I know the story of his "fake" conversion for political purposes, but there were other avenues he could have gone down - but if christianity was worthless how had it lasted that long)?? Why would it survive the next few centures of turmoil to get to the point that it was the powerhouse that it was in the late Byzantine period through the dark ages if it was a bunch of bunk??

Originally Posted by milesteg

For 2000 years they burnt most any other book they could and if you look now, that we have the internet, public libraries, amazon.com and so forth, now that the bible has competition ppl are running from it like the plague. We've already decried earlier that modern christians barely even READ the thing.

Which is a shame, but for so many other reasons. I would with complete confidence point out that a highly probable reason for the mass exodus from churches has nothing to do with what should be taught, but rather, what is not being taught. Roughly 25 years ago or so, it can be argued, the focus of churches began drifting away from the text itself to political shit and trying to fix everybody else's problems instead of their own. I am sure you would agree with me that I want no part of going somewhere and interacting with people who are more intrested in monetary gain and popular recognition (moral majority, anybody?) than fixing their own hypocrisy. This should not cast Jesus teachings in a bad light, rather the bad light should be cast on the offenders.

Originally Posted by milesteg

And no one teaches "Hey come to my church, read the bible, it's the best blueprint for life." What they say is "Come to my church or you'll burn in hell."

And that's been the entire "appeal" of the bible for 2000 years, believe or burn in hell.

Which is a damn shame. True, though. But that is one of the things martin Luther fought against during the protestant reformation. He actively campaigned for the actual reading and teaching of the text, not teaching dogma such as "Come to my church or you'll burn in hell."

Originally Posted by milesteg

And it's not like it's some harmless "OH just let grandma say her prayers" sorta pet peeve. People die every day over religion. Jews, Buddhist, Christians, Muslims are all dying or oppressing or ruining their kids lives all because not enough ppl with sense and bravery are there to stand up and say "The emporer is wearing no clothes! These religions aren't from god, they're from men and they suck! Not one of them is worth giving your life over to."

Which is what happens when fallible people are left in charge. We screw things up, which is why to blindly believe some big-hat (or turban) wearing fella's interpretation of whatever holy ****** you are looking at instead of studying it for yourself is foolish in the extreme.

Originally Posted by milesteg

I used to think "Well lookit all those happy Mormon families, the book of Mormon sure is bullshit but it must be doing something right." But then I did a little research into what it's REALLY like to be a Mormon, especially if you don't fit in, especially if you don't agree with their church leaders, and they're just as cruel, vile, hypocritical and evil as the rest of the religions out there. They're just better at keeping the mask on in public.

I have no actual info about the mormons, so I can't say anything. I'll just have to accept your view as being accurate, as I have seen nothing out of you to discount your reasoning ability.

Rydawg · 05-07-2009, 02:53 PM

Damn you guys are getting down on some serious convo here.......good stuff.

*Gets the fuck out of your guys' way*

jarwillie · 05-07-2009, 06:09 PM

What will you find, when you stare through the mirror into the graveyards of your mind? Where hatred is born from the ashes of lies, demons and angels blot out the sky, blot out the sky. You conform your faith, making your opinion truth, lash out every time someone disagrees with you. Obsessed with protecting some type of pride is the cause many a man with gun in hand has died. And his ghost was thinking as they buried him that night, it was all in vain, cause everyone thinks they’re the one who’s right, the one who’s right, the one who’s right, the one who’s right. Your face is alabaster and forgotten. Countless years of wearing masks. You’ll be rewarded with emptiness for staying faithful to the task.

SinsChampion · 05-07-2009, 06:56 PM

^ I don't know what it means, but WAR anyways!!!

RapeChoke · 05-07-2009, 08:57 PM

The Passion was a coo movie.

SinsChampion · 05-07-2009, 10:37 PM

It was allright - a tad graphic at points, unfortunately. But if that's what it took to get the message across.

scorpipede · 05-08-2009, 02:09 AM

I love meditation.

milesteg · 05-08-2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by SinsChampion

I suppose this is subject to interpretation

True, which is cryptic and imo works AGAINST understanding.

Any particular reason why not?? Good advice is good advice, no matter the source.

(reasons not to live your life by the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus ect) And the reason is two fold.
1. The Batman arguement, there are newer books written in English that provide less cryptic messages than the books of 2,000 year dead prophets.

2. Because Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and Zoraster's claims are to be from an almighty being, God if you will. To believe live as Jesus says isn't only to follow his idioms, it requires putting faith in the God of the Hebrews and faith in the books of the old testament.

3. If you're a woman, a homosexual or someone that values equality then Jesus or Mohammed's way of life calls for your castigation, enslavement and or death.
*ahem* also if your role model is Jesus you have to believe that God holds the Jews above the Gentiles. see good Samaritan story.

So take the good advice, leave the rest of the crap in the 1st century where it belongs.

I would say that batman, when compared to religious texts, is lacking in a certain depth.

I wouldn't. But you have to think, Batman's been in print for over 60 years. He's had god only knows how many television shows and movies. His character has been passed through hundreds of writers so in all that you're going to end up with some pretty profound stuff in there after a while.

I wouldn't personally choose batman because I'm not looking for a roadmap or a blueprint on how to live my life. I make my own way for my own reasons and I do not have any faith that anyone who has lived before has necessarily found the way to a life I'd consider worth living.

Fair enough, but as far as your analogy goes - it IS worthwhile, for that person, in that instant. Worth is a very personal thing, we all put different values on different things. Who knows, in 30 years, maybe the generation that loves the Jonas brothers and High School Musical uses whatever they may have gotten out of it productively. Doubtful, but theoretically possible.

Well I don't think so. I think the returns can be instantaneous and need not wait 30 years. In fact I'd be really trepadation in beginning any undertaking what my expected returns were 30 years away.

And this is why I have such a problem with organized religion. All the returns are post mortem, after death AND, AND, AND let's not forget, they're all on faith too. After 2,000 of years, BILLIONS of dead christians, not ONE has EVER come back and said, "Wow, things really did work out well for me after I died, Heaven's great." NOT ONE!

This is back to the individual's estimation of worth. Many people have used his teachings as a starting point for the pursuit of life's deeper questions, and have not come away dissapointed.

A lot of people wanting to see a good movie went to see "Dude Where's My Car" and did not come away dissappointed. But that don't mean it was a good movie.

But if you're going to undertake any serious academic study into any of the natural sciences from physics to philosophy for the ultimate goal of either teaching what you discovered or otherwise passing it down then Jesus will be completely useless for you.
IE: If you're SERIOUS about answering life's deep questions then Jesus will be of no help.

Here's jesus methadology: "Such and such is because I say so, and Jehovah told me."

No one's proven intellectually that there even IS a god. No one's proven that it's the god Jehovah of the Hebrews, No one's proven that this man Jesus had any authority to speak for Jehovah. All that you have to take on faith before you can come to any conclusion about veracity pertaining to Jesus' teachings.

And logically or scientifically nothing can be taken on faith.

This I would argue against. The old testament is a history, basically - it is what it is. The latter half of the new testament is an espousement of the teachings of Jesus - interpretation at its finest. The gospels themselves, however, while chock full of the basic moralistic teachings that can be found in other places, DO have one thing that seperates them from the pack. The ending. Other stories have similar tales of death and resurrection, but NEVER with similar motives behind it. I can't think of a single instance of the tragic hero voluntarily handing themselves over in as complete a fashion. Sacrificing themselves for a person (or small grouop of people), sure. But not in this fashion.

The story of Jesus death and ressurection were directly lifted from the Greek story of Dionysus death and ressurection. Dionysus was the "christ" god to the Greeks, the savior. I am also at a loss in my understanding of Jesus motives for allowing his cruxifiction and death.

True, to an extant. It was given an absolute headstart in the survival game by Constantine, sure. But why would he convert to a religion that was all but anethema at the time (and yes, I know the story of his "fake" conversion for political purposes, but there were other avenues he could have gone down - but if christianity was worthless how had it lasted that long)?? Why would it survive the next few centures of turmoil to get to the point that it was the powerhouse that it was in the late Byzantine period through the dark ages if it was a bunch of bunk??

Long story short, it didn't survive. Christianity as it was believed and practiced in Jesus day didn't last 10 years. Then Paul/Saul came and changed it. Then a hundred or so years later it was changed again, and then we get the catholics who don't even teach the bible but teach Catholic law which gets rewritten every day.

Protestantism is new but it didn't start on it's own, or when some shmoe read the bible. It was a split in the church. Protestants viewed the bible as holy because the Catholic church said it was holy.

Same reason every house and hotel room today has a bible but no one reads the thing. It's a religious artifact like a rosary or a cross, those two things haven't survived because they're artful or necessarily good, they survive because they're religious artifacts, just like the bible.

And as for Jesus' teachings? Pretty much everything you or I have been taught about JEsus or come across in recent literature is based on scholarly revisionism in the early part of the 19th century. This whole forgiveness and love bit is a new phenomenon to christianity. It's what was created when different religions had to compete.

Now christianity has to be seductive. Instead of god being angry he's loving, instead of Jesus being sacred he's now your friend whom you get a "personal" relationship with.

Which is a shame, but for so many other reasons. I would with complete confidence point out that a highly probable reason for the mass exodus from churches has nothing to do with what should be taught, but rather, what is not being taught. Roughly 25 years ago or so, it can be argued, the focus of churches began drifting away from the text itself to political shit and trying to fix everybody else's problems instead of their own. I am sure you would agree with me that I want no part of going somewhere and interacting with people who are more intrested in monetary gain and popular recognition (moral majority, anybody?) than fixing their own hypocrisy. This should not cast Jesus teachings in a bad light, rather the bad light should be cast on the offenders.

That's all that there's ever been in christianity and it's not the last 25 years it's the last 2,000. Even in Jesus day that was his primary bitch, the Sardisees and Pharisees were doing business and whoremongering and pawn broking literally in the church.

Which is a damn shame. True, though. But that is one of the things martin Luther fought against during the protestant reformation. He actively campaigned for the actual reading and teaching of the text, not teaching dogma such as "Come to my church or you'll burn in hell."

Luther did the same for the SAME exact shit, the church was not only selling indulgences but also pimping and raping and basically the priest class were doing whatever they wanted and citing made up passages in a Latin bible as pretense.

Without religion, without god ordaining this shit and having ordained jesus and the bible, none of this shit would have EVER been tolerated. But instead we get societies built upon these venerable figures and mystical texts that close off debate and real societal or sprititual growth. Why learn anything new when everything imporant was uncovered by prophets 1,000 years ago?

Which is what happens when fallible people are left in charge. We screw things up, which is why to blindly believe some big-hat (or turban) wearing fella's interpretation of whatever holy ****** you are looking at instead of studying it for yourself is foolish in the extreme.

Read anctient Greek and Hebrew then do you?

I have no actual info about the mormons, so I can't say anything. I'll just have to accept your view as being accurate, as I have seen nothing out of you to discount your reasoning ability.

Check out the south park episode "All About Mormons" it's an excellent albeit cruel primer on the Mormon faith.

SinsChampion · 05-08-2009, 01:09 PM

Part 1 of 2

Originally Posted by milesteg

True, which is cryptic and imo works AGAINST understanding.
(reasons not to live your life by the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus ect) And the reason is two fold.
1. The Batman arguement, there are newer books written in English that provide less cryptic messages than the books of 2,000 year dead prophets.

2. Because Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and Zoraster's claims are to be from an almighty being, God if you will. To believe live as Jesus says isn't only to follow his idioms, it requires putting faith in the God of the Hebrews and faith in the books of the old testament.

3. If you're a woman, a homosexual or someone that values equality then Jesus or Mohammed's way of life calls for your castigation, enslavement and or death.
*ahem* also if your role model is Jesus you have to believe that God holds the Jews above the Gentiles. see good Samaritan story.

So take the good advice, leave the rest of the crap in the 1st century where it belongs.

1. And a lot of the newer books are based somewhat on the morality presented by Christianity. Updated versions at best.
2. Yes, you're right. I don't find that to be a repulsive idea, though.
3. When it comes to women and homosexuals, I would say that the old testament is pretty rough on 'em. But look to the New. Jesus specifically states that we are to love "our neighbors" as ourselves. Homosexuals, women, lepers, whatever, included. And YES this incudes gentiles - read acts sometime.

Originally Posted by milesteg

I wouldn't. But you have to think, Batman's been in print for over 60 years. He's had god only knows how many television shows and movies. His character has been passed through hundreds of writers so in all that you're going to end up with some pretty profound stuff in there after a while.

Some yes, but I would argue that the simple fact that there are multiple writers with multiple viewpoints negates its value as a moral compass.

Originally Posted by milesteg

I wouldn't personally choose batman because I'm not looking for a roadmap or a blueprint on how to live my life. I make my own way for my own reasons and I do not have any faith that anyone who has lived before has necessarily found the way to a life I'd consider worth living.

After how many billion people have lived, you don't think for even one second that potentially one of those people have lived a life worth emulating?? That is a personal choice, but not one that I necessarily agree with.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Well I don't think so. I think the returns can be instantaneous and need not wait 30 years. In fact I'd be really trepadation in beginning any undertaking what my expected returns were 30 years away.

You're absolutely right, but that was an off-the-cuff example.

Originally Posted by milesteg

And this is why I have such a problem with organized religion. All the returns are post mortem, after death AND, AND, AND let's not forget, they're all on faith too. After 2,000 of years, BILLIONS of dead christians, not ONE has EVER come back and said, "Wow, things really did work out well for me after I died, Heaven's great." NOT ONE!

Not all of christianity's returns are post mortem. Of course, there is the huge payoff at the end, you're right, but there are also the little things. Peace, joy, etc... none of which suck.

Originally Posted by milesteg

A lot of people wanting to see a good movie went to see "Dude Where's My Car" and did not come away dissappointed. But that don't mean it was a good movie.

It was to them, and that is what actually counts at the end of the day. Odds are real good that I am smarter than most of those people, but any argument I make that it was a shitty movie will make zero dent on their experience. They enjoyed it. I don't know about you, but I try to temper my intelligance-based arrogance and don't tell people whats best for them (unless in a wonderful discussion such as this!

)

Originally Posted by milesteg

But if you're going to undertake any serious academic study into any of the natural sciences from physics to philosophy for the ultimate goal of either teaching what you discovered or otherwise passing it down then Jesus will be completely useless for you.
IE: If you're SERIOUS about answering life's deep questions then Jesus will be of no help.

I wouldn't necessarily say so. Not every question has an answer that is so deep and meaningful that only the educated can surmise it. Some things just are. Example: the world would be better off if in all ways each individual loved every other person as they loved themselves. There is no arguing this to a different and at the same time, satisfactory, conclusion in my opinion.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Here's jesus methadology: "Such and such is because I say so, and Jehovah told me."

Which is the way things worked back then. Ask Buddha or Mohammed.

Originally Posted by milesteg

No one's proven intellectually that there even IS a god. No one's proven that it's the god Jehovah of the Hebrews, No one's proven that this man Jesus had any authority to speak for Jehovah. All that you have to take on faith before you can come to any conclusion about veracity pertaining to Jesus' teachings.

Not necessarily, you can be perfectly happy with accepting the fact that he was a prophet (false or otherwise) who had a good moral teaching pattern. You'd be missing out on the greater message, but your decision not to have faith is your own.

Originally Posted by milesteg

And logically or scientifically nothing can be taken on faith.

Absolutely 100% false. Period. If you believe in the big bang, that is an act of faith. It cannot be proven, nor could it ever be proven. Every single day, some scientist somewhere discovers something new - which if extrapolated to its natural conclusion, completely invalidates EVERY SINGLE scientific "law" known as of this moment. If new things are being discovered all the time, logically it can be said that all that we know is just that "all that we happen to know at the moment." If you take anything as fact, without leaving the potential for disprovement the moment something new comes around, you are living by a type of faith. In order to absolutely live beyond faith, you would need to spend every waking moment of your life keeping up with every scientific breakthrough and new piece of information to make sure that what you know is actual fact and not based on believing that somebody else was right in their discovery.

Originally Posted by milesteg

The story of Jesus death and ressurection were directly lifted from the Greek story of Dionysus death and ressurection. Dionysus was the "christ" god to the Greeks, the savior. I am also at a loss in my understanding of Jesus motives for allowing his cruxifiction and death.

According to the text: (rough summation) his purpose in death was to provide himself as not only the sacrifice required by Jewish law for transgressions, but also (coupled with a resurrection) as a visual example of the power of God himself - a reminder if you will of who actually has the power around here.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Long story short, it didn't survive. Christianity as it was believed and practiced in Jesus day didn't last 10 years. Then Paul/Saul came and changed it. Then a hundred or so years later it was changed again, and then we get the catholics who don't even teach the bible but teach Catholic law which gets rewritten every day.

That is a revisionist history, with no actual basis in known fact. If you are going to take that as fact, you are just as guilty of taking something unknown on faith as I am.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Protestantism is new but it didn't start on it's own, or when some shmoe read the bible. It was a split in the church. Protestants viewed the bible as holy because the Catholic church said it was holy.

Isn't it entirely possible that the Catholics were bound to get at least one thing right?

SinsChampion · 05-08-2009, 01:10 PM

Part 2 of 2

Originally Posted by milesteg

Same reason every house and hotel room today has a bible but no one reads the thing. It's a religious artifact like a rosary or a cross, those two things haven't survived because they're artful or necessarily good, they survive because they're religious artifacts, just like the bible.

While it is true that most folks today consider them quiant relics of an earlier era, that is to their detriment. It does not lessen the value of the Bible itself, if people choose to ignore or devalue something of value, that is their business.

Originally Posted by milesteg

And as for Jesus' teachings? Pretty much everything you or I have been taught about JEsus or come across in recent literature is based on scholarly revisionism in the early part of the 19th century. This whole forgiveness and love bit is a new phenomenon to christianity. It's what was created when different religions had to compete.

Not so. It was there the whole time, it had just been forgotten/overlooked/suppresed whatever. Revisionism, no. Rediscover, Yes.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Now christianity has to be seductive. Instead of god being angry he's loving, instead of Jesus being sacred he's now your friend whom you get a "personal" relationship with.

Which is wrong (not your statement, their actions).

Originally Posted by milesteg

That's all that there's ever been in christianity and it's not the last 25 years it's the last 2,000. Even in Jesus day that was his primary bitch, the Sardisees and Pharisees were doing business and whoremongering and pawn broking literally in the church.

Exactly - that's one of the saddest things about the Christianity era. Jesus broke it down to 2 rules (both of which completely covered the Pharisee/Saducee problem as well as every other interpersonal or interdeital problem possible.) and we can't even get THAT right.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Luther did the same for the SAME exact shit, the church was not only selling indulgences but also pimping and raping and basically the priest class were doing whatever they wanted and citing made up passages in a Latin bible as pretense.

Yes they were, anybody who thinks that things will get out of control when fallible human beings are left in control has other issues.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Without religion, without god ordaining this shit and having ordained jesus and the bible, none of this shit would have EVER been tolerated. But instead we get societies built upon these venerable figures and mystical texts that close off debate and real societal or sprititual growth. Why learn anything new when everything imporant was uncovered by prophets 1,000 years ago?

Ever heard the phrase, there is nothing truly new under the sun? That is the most truthful sentence ever uttered. Everything happening today is just an extrapolation of the same things that happened 1,000 or even 5,000 years ago. There are slight variants, but similar to the idea that there are only 15 (?) different potential plots for a novel in the English language, everything we see now, has been seen before. Why learn anything new??? That's preposterous. Just because somebody else has discovered it doesn't make it any less new to you! In fact, I would say that is the height of arrogance to assume that just because you discover something for yourself, and then discard it because you learn that somebody else at another point in time has already discovered it.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Read anctient Greek and Hebrew then do you?

I am actually studying Hebrew, currently. (Ancient Hebrew is not so different from current Hebrew - not having vowels is the toughtest part.

Originally Posted by milesteg

Check out the south park episode "All About Mormons" it's an excellent albeit cruel primer on the Mormon faith.

Will do.

milesteg · 05-08-2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by SinsChampion

Part 1 of 2
1. And a lot of the newer books are based somewhat on the morality presented by Christianity. Updated versions at best.
2. Yes, you're right. I don't find that to be a repulsive idea, though.
3. When it comes to women and homosexuals, I would say that the old testament is pretty rough on 'em. But look to the New. Jesus specifically states that we are to love "our neighbors" as ourselves. Homosexuals, women, lepers, whatever, included. And YES this incudes gentiles - read acts sometime.

1. Which is why they're better than the bible, all the good moral, none of the petty bronze age theology.
2. It is to an athiest or someone from a differing faith.
3. That's hippy talk, the problem is that love means different things to different ppl. The inquisition wasn't about being mean, it was about saving souls. So were the Crusades. And you can't tell me they're wrong without adding your OWN definition of love, one which may be entirely different from mine or Constantines or even dare I say, Jesus'.

Some yes, but I would argue that the simple fact that there are multiple writers with multiple viewpoints negates its value as a moral compass.

You and I have been having a lengthy and pleasant discussion but I feel you've just pounded the stake into your own arguement's heart.

The Bible both Old and New Testament, The Acts, The Gospels and all the books of the apocrypha including the Dead Sea Scrolls and even the theorized Q...were all written by different authors in different times with different viewpoints.

And yes, I feel that this fact does indeed negate The Bible's and Jesus' value as a moral compass.

After how many billion people have lived, you don't think for even one second that potentially one of those people have lived a life worth emulating?? That is a personal choice, but not one that I necessarily agree with.

Correct. No one as far as my research has shown me is immortal and nowhere was there ever a Utopia. Those are my ultimate goals. Sure other ppl have lived highly valuable lives but their outcome wasn't good enough for me.

Like Isaac Newton said, "I've seen what I've seen only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." well I feel the same way, other great great lives have been lived before me.

But no one, and I mean no one, has ever laid out a perfect gameplan for happiness, peace, freedom from suffering or oppression or anything else we'd want in our own utopia.

It's a process, we're learning as a species, each generation a little closer to the goal than the one before it. But we're not there yet.

Not all of christianity's returns are post mortem. Of course, there is the huge payoff at the end, you're right, but there are also the little things. Peace, joy, etc... none of which suck.

True, and several junkies used religion to get off the smack. Several ppl the world over in bad situations have found solace in the pages of the bible or even found refuge in churches or citadels run by ppl on personal religious missions.

However one might argue that this doesn't seem to be a Christian or even Biblical phenomenon. Every religion, every society, every people have their own mechanisms for delivering similar support for people. Religion is a crutch, faith is a crutch, the real power is inside of us.

And here's the story of a man who was moved by a super hero. A poor boy growing up in a south american city, his famly has troubles so he has to stay with his aunt and uncle, he could join gangs or turn to drugs but instead he pores himself into comic books. He likes that Spiderman is working class like himself but that doesn't stop him from battling crime and being a hero. He emulates Spiderman's hard work ethic and now that little boy has grown up to be Anderson "The Spider" Silva.

It was to them, and that is what actually counts at the end of the day. Odds are real good that I am smarter than most of those people, but any argument I make that it was a shitty movie will make zero dent on their experience. They enjoyed it. I don't know about you, but I try to temper my intelligance-based arrogance and don't tell people whats best for them (unless in a wonderful discussion such as this!

)

I wouldn't necessarily say so. Not every question has an answer that is so deep and meaningful that only the educated can surmise it.

Descartes' mind body problem, Plato's forms, Hume v. Kant, Imperialism vs. Sensationalism, Existentialism, Neitszche's Superman.

You are correct, anyone can solve these problems...but it does take an education to teach them, to share in their discussion, to further the discussion for the next generation to take over.

Knowledge/Wisdom for their own sake are fine. But we are members of a collective and a good chunk of our concern is with the communication of ideas.

Some things just are. Example: the world would be better off if in all ways each individual loved every other person as they loved themselves. There is no arguing this to a different and at the same time, satisfactory, conclusion in my opinion.

Look a little deeper. Look at the Opus Dei Catholic whose idea of self love is corporal mortification, basically whipping themselves bloody with a barbed whip. Look at S&M practitioners who practise love by sticking safety pins throughout their body, or chronic masturbators, do you want them to love you as they love themselves?

You can't just say something like "The would would be better off in all ways each individual loved evevery other person as they loved themselves" without a deeper and more exacting definition of the words "Love" and "Better off".

Which is the way things worked back then. Ask Buddha or Mohammed.

Yes, because they were ignorant. We shouldn't emulate that.

Not necessarily, you can be perfectly happy with accepting the fact that he was a prophet (false or otherwise) who had a good moral teaching pattern. You'd be missing out on the greater message, but your decision not to have faith is your own.

Okay but at that point you've relegated Jesus to the place of any old wise man and his moral teachings bear no more weight than Batman's, Mine, Yours or even Ashton Kutcher's for that matter.

Absolutely 100% false. Period. If you believe in the big bang, that is an act of faith. It cannot be proven, nor could it ever be proven. Every single day, some scientist somewhere discovers something new - which if extrapolated to its natural conclusion, completely invalidates EVERY SINGLE scientific "law" known as of this moment. If new things are being discovered all the time, logically it can be said that all that we know is just that "all that we happen to know at the moment." If you take anything as fact, without leaving the potential for disprovement the moment something new comes around, you are living by a type of faith. In order to absolutely live beyond faith, you would need to spend every waking moment of your life keeping up with every scientific breakthrough and new piece of information to make sure that what you know is actual fact and not based on believing that somebody else was right in their discovery.

We don't take the Big Bang or any other scientific theory on faith. At this time though, given ALL WE KNOW collectively, the Big Bang appears to be the likliest explanation for the beginning of our universe.

This is pragmatism, not faith as it pertains to religious faith, ie belief without result.

According to the text: (rough summation) his purpose in death was to provide himself as not only the sacrifice required by Jewish law for transgressions, but also (coupled with a resurrection) as a visual example of the power of God himself - a reminder if you will of who actually has the power around here.

See and your explanation is different from any one else's i've heard too. Which negates the idea that the message of Jesus willfull sacrifice is what has swayed the billions to christianity.

That is a revisionist history, with no actual basis in known fact. If you are going to take that as fact, you are just as guilty of taking something unknown on faith as I am.

We can see the changes in Christianity, in the translations, in the notes from the Priests and later the entire Catholic Church. Judaism and Islam change too through the different councels and Talmudic studies and Sharia texts.

"Revisionist History?" More like the History of Revisions. Hell even the notes of these changes by guys like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are great intellectual works in and of themselves.

Isn't it entirely possible that the Catholics were bound to get at least one thing right?

Possible, but like all things I'm gonna need a little evidence.
However probable? No.