Burning Holy Books

[spook]

I always saw christianity as being a thing of compromise. Tot all the different churches but christianity as a faith. As a christian you learned what Jesus did and what he said and did your best to follow what he said and did as well as you could. The only point of not compromising was to deny being a christian. After all Jesus did say give to ceaser what is ceasers and to god what is gods and that’s compromise. He also said that the sabeth was made for man and not man for the sabath, another compromise by christianity from what the jews say. I don’t see any compromise from the muslims though. Even in religion IvI think that they only tolerate other religions and don’t treat them as equal but different like we do.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

How comes when the Mozzies destroy bibles at border crossings or desicrate Christian churches as they do on a regular basis no one says a word, yet when theres the slightest sign of us pissing on their things all hell breaks out and we let them get away with it even going so far as supporting them in their howls of hyterical rabble rouding.

 

Theres sometning about Islam that I'm getting bad vibes about.

Because Christianity is all about being weak and enjoying masochism.

[spook]

How comes when the Mozzies destroy bibles at border crossings or desicrate Christian churches as they do on a regular basis no one says a word, yet when theres the slightest sign of us pissing on their things all hell breaks out and we let them get away with it even going so far as supporting them in their howls of hyterical rabble rouding.

 

Theres sometning about Islam that I'm getting bad vibes about.

Because Christianity is all about being weak and enjoying masochism.

 

Explain?

[Evil Goblin]

This picture of Jesus as a poor, mild, down-trodden person is quite inaccurate, as any careful reading of the Gospels will reveal. He was actually very brave - he could have avoided crucifiction but chose not to compromise his beliefs.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I say this in how you have the central role of Jesus in being this poor, persecuted man who was sacrificed out of a dislike of his claims. It's this persecution that I think lends itself to a habit of many Christians to relish in being persecuted or criticised.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Ok, not that I necessarily believed the MAN existed though think it is probable, Christ was persecuted and sacrified for his claims. As disgusting as it all is, the sacrifice is the central thing to Christiniaty. His role is about one who suffered for his beliefs.

[spook]

I say this in how you have the central role of Jesus in being this poor, persecuted man who was sacrificed out of a dislike of his claims.

Jesus was not sacrificed.

Jesus as the human form of The Trinity chose to suffer and die on behalf of anyone who would accept his gift and try to follow his teachings in their future. They didnt have to, they could fail and if genuinly sorry be forgiven, but they did have to try and keep trying.

It's this persecution that I think lends itself to a habit of many Christians to relish in being persecuted or criticised.

What a strange way of thought you have about christianity let alone strange understanding of people and reality.

Jesus was NOT persecuted and sacrificed for his claims. Jesus was persecuted because he stood against the jew lawyers of the day, and he was not sacrificed, he chose to suffer on our behalf.

As disgusting as it all is, the sacrifice is the central thing to Christiniaty.

It wasn’t a sacrifice. It was a choice to suffer for us. It was a deal. He took the pain, we take the gain, and all we have to do is accept the he did this and try our best to live like he did.

His role is about one who suffered for his beliefs.

His role is as our saviour if we will accept him as such and try to lead the life he presented. You really don’t understand christianity do you? Were you ever taught anything about christianity?

[Evil Goblin]

It is certain that he existed - whether all the sayings and teachings that are attributed to him in the NT are accurate or true is another matter and is the subject of much academic research and debate. The Gospels portayal of him as being persecuted thoughout his ministry are almost certainly untrue - his execution was almost certainly ordained by the Sanhedrin and Pilate for being a threat to public order at the Passover in Jerusalem, which he would have avoided if he had backed down to the Sanhedrin.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It is certain? How is it certain? The only reference to him has been from the Bible and from two or three sources outside of the Levant decades after he was around.

 

I think it likely that some charismatic rabbi did exist. But his teachings and sayings are hardly the subject of much academic research unless you mean some form of analysis from the Bible and theological works. There isn't much evidence of the man existing, nevermind his immoral teachings.

 

I didn't think Jesus was persecuted at all until near the time of his execution. That wasn't what I was commenting on.

[Evil Goblin]

LDV

 

There are a number of references to "Chrestus" and his followers by Roman historians, who also refer to his having been crucified at the time of Pilates' prefecture. He is also referred to by Josephus in "Antiquities" (although there has apparently been some tampering with the references by Christian redactors).

 

The evidence seems to point to Jesus as having been a typical Jewish Hassid and his particular rise to prominence as due to the work of The Great Apostle, Paul. Most research these days on the historical figure of Jesus has been by Jewish scholars and is based not only on the canonical Christian works but on the heretical works and the Talmud and other Jewish religious works, plus linkages to Greek wisdom works. Given the nature of the subject and that in his own time Jesus was not a prominent figure it is not surprising that the sources on which research is based are either Biblical or theological. Where else would you expect to find appropriate information?

 

Your comment about his "immoral teachings" is interesting. What was immoral about them?

[P.K.]

Of course it's not just moslems. Start talking to anyone who is deeply religious and they just start quoting their particular Haynes Manual of Life at you as justification of, well, anything. It's very convenient of course that none of the contents these centuries old texts can be proved in any way, just like the existence of their particular god, so no discussion required! Just do what (you think) your particular Haynes manual says. Hey, you don't have to prove a damn thing , just have faith.

 

That's a very poor analogy. Every drawing and photograph in a Haynes Manual will only bear a fleeting and probably coincidental resemblance to what you are actually looking at.

 

What really pisses me off is how seriously they take books like the Koran or whatever it's called this week. Part of our culture is to take the piss out of religion. If their religion isn't strong enough to take that then as far as I'm concerned they can exercise their freedom of choice we give everyone in the UK and piss off to some dump where the culture is more in keeping with their stone-age teaching.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV

 

There are a number of references to "Chrestus" and his followers by Roman historians, who also refer to his having been crucified at the time of Pilates' prefecture. He is also referred to by Josephus in "Antiquities" (although there has apparently been some tampering with the references by Christian redactors).

 

The evidence seems to point to Jesus as having been a typical Jewish Hassid and his particular rise to prominence as due to the work of The Great Apostle, Paul. Most research these days on the historical figure of Jesus has been by Jewish scholars and is based not only on the canonical Christian works but on the heretical works and the Talmud and other Jewish religious works, plus linkages to Greek wisdom works. Given the nature of the subject and that in his own time Jesus was not a prominent figure it is not surprising that the sources on which research is based are either Biblical or theological. Where else would you expect to find appropriate information?

 

Your comment about his "immoral teachings" is interesting. What was immoral about them?

I am aware of the references to Chrestus, but these were made decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived and it is not clear as to whether this was really the Jesus of the Bible. The Bible, Jewish works and a few references to him do not really push the matter to near certainties in my mind. And I would require even greater evidence if there were claims that he was divine as well

[Evil Goblin]

What really pisses me off is how seriously they take books like the Koran or whatever it's called this week. Part of our culture is to take the piss out of religion. If their religion isn't strong enough to take that then as far as I'm concerned they can exercise their freedom of choice we give everyone in the UK and piss off to some dump where the culture is more in keeping with their stone-age teaching.[/font]

And therein we have a ready explanation for why we have wars! A bit of tolerance for the views of others would go a long way (and I freely accept that Islam generally has much further to go in this respect than we have).

[Evil Goblin]

You are being too much of a positivist here, LDV. The weight of evidence for his existence, having conducted some sort of ministry and his death under Pilate c33AD are really incontrovertible. I suspect you will need the Second Coming to convince you, although, with your views, perhaps you should not welcome the event!

There are a number of different conceptions of what is meant by saying that Jesus was divine. I assume you are referring to the traditional understanding with the physical resurrection, etc. (which Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, actually rubbishes), in which case I would agree that he was not divine. However, there are other conceptions of divine, some of which extend to all humans.

You have not said what is immoral about Jesus' teachings.

[ballaughbiker]

That's a very poor analogy

Agreed. But at least the contents of a Haynes manual has a somewhat remote fleeting oblique relevance to what you see before you. The same can't be said for the bible or the qur'an or whatever. Yep, a poor analogy!

 

And therein we have a ready explanation for why we have wars! A bit of tolerance for the views of others would go a long way (and I freely accept that Islam generally has much further to go in this respect than we have).

So you want me to be tolerant of someone who wants to make real life 21st C scenarii somehow fit a book written in the 1st or 7th C? Furthermore they seem most intolerant of my views on the subsequent nonsense spouted in some sort of justification of this impossible task. That's the reason there are wars!