I consider myself Christian, and my faith has been strained through the hard years I've had to live.. But the first thing I am doing when school ends Wednesday, a week from today, is going to go see this movie.

There has been a huge amount of hype, people saying it is anti-semitic, etc... But of all the men who have ever lived, there has not been one person like Jesus Christ who changed the world. There is a weird sense of taboo that goes along with a movie like this, but if it is an accurate story of what the Bible has told us, there isn't much of a reason as to why that is.

www.passion-movie.com/english/index.html (http://www.passion-movie.com/english/index.html) is the link to the movie's website, the use of the actual languages spoken two thousand years ago is useful in that everyone who sees it will either know those ancient languages or have to read the subtitles.. If it lives up to the high standards Mel Gibson has been told to have for it, truly this is a movie for the whole world to see.

I don't see how someone could call a story like this anti-semitic.. Jesus and nearly all the people he preached directly to were Jewish and lived in the heart of Israel where the Jewish religion was strongest.

I havn't seen the movie yet, but it doesn't sound antisemitic (by any reasonable definition of the word, anyway) from what I have heard about it.

Wh say it's antisemitic, and have you heard any arguments to back up their claim?

I'm a christian too but:

But of all the men who have ever lived, there has not been one person like Jesus Christ who changed the world.

:eek

Muhammed (or Mohammed if you like)
Hitler
Ghandi
Stalin
Buddha

and there are more, I'm sure you can think of a few all on your own.

Wh say it's antisemitic, and have you heard any arguments to back up their claim?I can't give you names, but there have been a lot of grumblings, it's been in the news for quite a bit.

Being that there are many types of prejudicial hatred, one form stems back to (WW2? I think? Brain won't go into gear this morning) and blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. That's not quite accurate, but you get the drift. Remember too that the Nazi's claimed to be Christian and acting under God's will, so the Jewish population is justifiably a little leary of something like this. If lots of people see the movie and see Jews killing the Jesus figure, then you get hatred aimed at Jews...

Not that I think it'll be antisemitic. At least, won't stir up as much trouble as some people seem to think. There's always your few extremest groups, and most folks can react rationally. If the movie is really accurate to the depiction in the Bible, we might even get some anti-Roman sentiment floating around. :)


-Kanyli

"like Jesus Christ "

"Hitler
Ghandi
Stalin"

Muhammed came to my mind as well, Buddha I reall ydon't know enough about. I would much disagree about Ghandi's effect on "the world". But the other two are nothing "like" Jesus Christ.

The idea that jews, as a people, are "christ-killers" is a very old one. The spanish inquisition used it, and Martin Luther wrote a really repulsive book "about the jews and their lies".

If I remember correctly, it all stems back from the second century or so. The jews had special previlegies in the roman empire, they was excused from the otherwise mandatory worship of the emperor. The early christians was confused aboutif they should define themselves as a jewish cult or a independent one. Defining themselves as "not jewish", christians got persecuted for not worshipping the emperor, and they got jealous at the jews.

/agree

Hitler and Stalin were much more like Attila the Hun in their effect. They screwed with a lot of people, but nothing close to a billion people followed their "teachings".

I don't see how a historically accurate dipiction of Jesus could do anything but show the jewish involvement in his execution. That's the way it happened and it should not be whitewashed. You don't see the Italians up in arms because it shows the Romans as they were.

I'll probably go see the movie. It should be a powerful story and it will be interesting to see what seems to make it so controversial.

Much of the controversy stems from Gibson's particular brand of traditionalist Catholicism and that of his father, who is -- apparently -- rather extreme in his beliefs. Also, there are a couple verses in the bible that lay the death of Jesus on the blood of the Jews and their ancestors, a fine pretext for the centuries of persecution they endured at Christian hands (one would think an omniscient deity would edit that bit out, as Gibson did).

The whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing really makes no theological sense, btw. By all accounts, the Hebrew god fashioned a son for himself for the express purpose of having him die a mortal death, so that the son's blood would bring salvation to humanity. Anyone killing Jesus was fulfilling the god's (omnipotent) will, so it's absurd to blame them for it. But then, given the lack of logic that went into this story in the first place, it's no suprise that the follow through was a bloody mess.

I'm sure it will be a great film, even powerful to believers. Can Jesus beat out Spiderman for box office draw? Stay tuned!

Jesus Saves!

(Everybody else takes 6d6 points of damage.)

Best T-shirt ever. ;)

Heard some very interesting stuff at church this weekend.

Basically, the premise back then was that you could do whatever religion you wanted, as long as you acknowledged Caesar as the greek word "kerberos" (possibly spelled wrong) that translates to "lord." It basically means leader.

Unfortunately, the Christians refered to Jesus with that word, which did not please Caesar.

I'd never heard that. Interesting little tidbit; I hope to have some time to verify it a bit.

The point isn't whether any of the people I mentioned had a positive or negative effect but more that they had an effect on people's thinking and beliefs at all.

Most people agree that Hitler was "a bad man". Even though he committed atrocities against other humans on a grand scale his very existence forces us to ask ourselves how such a person can come to power, what kind of mindset it takes to be that relentlessly cruel and what we can do to prevent that kind of thinking in ourselves and guard against becoming pawns to someone like that today and in the future.

Hitler didn't found a religion but you can't deny he changed the world.

Unfortunately, the Christians refered to Jesus with that word, which did not please Caesar.
It depended on who was emperor at the time. Other than Nero's blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 AD, Christians had little to worry about (they were viewed as just another sect of Judaism), and the religion spread quickly. Another 150 years later, it was no longer a religion for the poor, downtrodden masses, but had spread to all sections of Roman society.

Emperor Decius launched the first state sanctioned persecution of Christians and other non-Roman faiths in an effort to restore Roman unity and virtue to the empire to help contend with barbarian invasions. If you weren't (literrally) certified as having sacrificed to the Roman gods, you could be tortured and executed. Decius' plan to snuff out Christianity might have succeeded were he not distracted by the Goths. He died in battle against them in 251 AD.

Diocletian also instituted persecution against non-Roman religions in 285 AD, for much the same reasons as his predecessor. His efforts at reform forestalled Rome's collapse, though his methods were often unkind. He retired in 305 AD, and a couple decades later Constantine legitimized Christianity (and was sainted for it, despite having murdered several members of his family).

In hindsight, the persecution of Christians was surprisingly brief given the press it gets, but it wasn't lacking in brutality.

Wh say it's antisemitic, and have you heard any arguments to back up their claim?

Mel Gibson actually took out one scene in the movie, because many christian leaders thought it was too antisemitic.

Looks like a good movie though.

Would I be wrong in saying that I want to see this movie because Monica Belluci is in it?

Nope, cause she's a hottie. I didn't realize she was in it. I'll definitely see it now.

Her google lookup works the way all google lookups should. The first link brings up naked pics.

Some Jewish leaders have claimed that some scenes unnecessarily show Jews clamoring for the Romans to kill Jesus, and that the scene was unnecessary. They also cite a comment by Gibson's father expressing his opinion that the numbers of Jews killed in the holocaust is overestimated. You'd think that the Jews had enough enemies without this kind of controversy.

Hitler didn't found a religion but you can't deny he changed the world.

yes I can. He has no lasting or temporary contribution. The world was changed by the events he had a part in creating.

L2 i just wanted to say...

you're an asshole, and thanks for GoD

The complaint I heard was, in essence:

In the movie, if you are a Jew and don't follow Jesus, you are an evil rat bastard.

I don't think they used the term "rat bastard", come to think of it.

I have no idea if it is true or anything, just relaying. =)

Michael Medved, who is a Jewish talk show host and used to be a popular movie critic, denies the validity of the antisemitic charges against the film. He says that the scenes in question show the crowd being evenly split between those despairing at his suffering, and those rabid for his death. Apparently though, the scenes that Jews find the most disturbing are not detailed in all of the gospel accounts, and they question why he chose to include a scene that could perhaps be considered the most condemning to them.

But of all the men who have ever lived, there has not been one person like Jesus Christ who changed the world.

The only reason why Jesus is such a superstar is because of thousands of years of advertisement and good PR.
Sounds cruel, but its true.. or does anyone of you have any even slightest proof that this person even existed?
And if he existed, does anyone of you even have the slightest proof that there weren't others, like him, before, after, that had the same powers and did the same htings, but they didn't, for some reason, get to know?

This ALL is based solely on a few people writing a book about a man and thousands of years of advertisement. That's all.

And yet, 1000 years from now the words of Christ will still be inspiring people all around the world while the only evidence of your existence will be a half crumbled tombstone that nobody has visited in 930 years.

Sounds cruel, but its true.. or does anyone of you have any even slightest proof that this person even existed?

Actually, yes. But, if you don't take interesting in things that don't agree with your world view, you'd probably miss that type of stuff.

Prove Alexander the Great existed.


There are independant Roman and Jewish records of man named Jesus of Nazarath.
There is no debate that there was a man who preeched and had a small following named Jesus in that area at that time.

The Debate is to the nature of the man.

>>"And yet, 1000 years from now the words of Christ will still be inspiring people all around the world "

You mean the words of Lucas, Matthews, Paulus and the others? The book compiled some threehundred years after Jesus death? Yeah, it will still be a important book in 1000 years from now. And so will the words of Plato, Confusius, Buddha, Mohammed and the other old bestsellers.

There are independant Roman and Jewish records of man named Jesus of Nazarath.
If you're speaking of records referring to a man named Jesus who was the basis of the Gospel accounts (forgetting for a moment the supernatural stuff), I'd really like to know where these Roman/Jewish records are.

While most biblical scholars take it as granted that Jesus existed (leaving, as you said, the nature of the man and what he really did say to debate), not all do, and the case for ahistoricity is pretty good these days. The only remotely contemporary account of Jesus is a small paragraph in Book 18 of Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, and that is universally regarded as an interpolation (probably inserted or altered by Eusebius, who wasn't above a little falsification if it helped the cause).

There are more references than that.
the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is "the collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him or His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text.

The Talmud makes note of Jesus' miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as "on the eve of the Feast of the Passover" in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events.

Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, "to Christ as a god," an early secular witness to the belief in Christ's divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.

Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]

Even with disdain for the Christian faith, Tacitus still treated the execution of Christ as historical fact, drawing connections to Roman events and leaders. (cf. Luke 3:1ff)

Other secular witnesses to the historical Jesus include Suetonius in his biography of Claudius, Phlegan recording the eclipse of the sun during Jesus' death and even Celsus, a pagan philosopher. It must be kept in mind that most of these sources were not only secular but anti-Christian. These secular authors, including the Jewish writers, had no desire or intention to promote Christianity. They had no motivation to distort their reports in favor of Christianity. Pliny actually punished Christians for their faith. If Jesus were a myth or His execution a hoax, Tacitus would have reported it as such. He certainly would not have connected Jesus' execution to Roman leaders. These writers presented Jesus as a real historical person. Denying the reliability of these sources in connection to Jesus would cast serious suspicion on the rest of ancient history.

Now these ancient secular writings do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God or even the Christ, but that is not the goal of this tract. These reports show that a virtuous person named Jesus did live in the early first century A.D. and authored a religious movement (which still exists today). This Person was at least called Christ - the Messiah. Christians in the first century also appeared to consider Him God. Finally these writings support other facts found in the Bible surrounding His life. The claim that Jesus never existed and His life is a myth compromises the reliability of ancient history.


Additionally... Jesus is Mentioned a few times in the Qu'r'an. Mohammad mentions him and refers to him as a brother and a equal in God.

Moreover. The lives of several parties involved in the story of Christ are in the perfect place and times as to coincide with that of a man who lived in that exact time period. Herod, Pontius, The Jewish judge who condemned Jesus (I forget his name).

Never mind the fact that you have the DETAILED records of several people who DEFINITLY lived in that time.
Did Peter, Paul, Mark and John INVENT a man?
You are venturing into some real doubtful conspiritial, Hartmut type shit when you start saying that. Occams Razor and all that.

Besides... have you ever READ the Sermon on the Mount?
Even without the Divine stuff, he would have to be regarded as the greatest Philosopher who has ever lived.
Forget the Theoretical. The ideological aspects of his tenets on "good" and the meaning of life and living well are as close to perfection as has ever been laid out.

Bah.. anyway, Im not even that good of a Christian.
You want to get into serious debate with some of the leading Catholic and Christian minds? Some CS Lewis type people? Go here www.beliefnet.com/ (http://www.beliefnet.com/)
Be warned.. in comparision, this is a kiddie pool and that is the Ocean.

If you are interested in this subject, I highly suggest you read the book, "The Case for Christ." It was written by a "spiritual skeptic" who through investigation and interviews of scholarly Christians, eventually grew to accept Christianity. He is a journalist with the Chicago Tribune (i think) and went about the investigations like a trial lawyer would.

www.the-case-for-christ.com/ (http://www.the-case-for-christ.com/)

It's a good read.

The only reason why Jesus is such a superstar is because of thousands of years of advertisement and good PR.
Sounds cruel, but its true.. or does anyone of you have any even slightest proof that this person even existed?
And if he existed, does anyone of you even have the slightest proof that there weren't others, like him, before, after, that had the same powers and did the same htings, but they didn't, for some reason, get to know?

This ALL is based solely on a few people writing a book about a man and thousands of years of advertisement. That's all.

Taino just worded my entire view on it.

But I can see the fear in acceptance that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived.
You are then caught in CS Lewis' "Trilemma"

Either Jesus was a Liar, a Mad Man or what he claimed.

'There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and said 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said 'My son, you are still in the veil of illusion'. If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius 'Are you heaven?' I think he would probably have replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are not looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects — Hatred — Terror — Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.'


But you must also deny that Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke and John existed. Otherwise the trilemma is compounded by 5.

Why would they invent a Religion? None of them died or lived with wealth, they were persecuted and lead hard lives, many after leaving lives of privledge to promote the teachings of man who never existed? huh?

Taino just worded my entire view on it.

Sure. And in my limited knowledge, I can think of a lot of hugely famous historical figures.

None of whom had such a following as to foster the creation of a religion that has existed for 2000 years.

The real question is that since there is good proof of the existence of Jesus, and since Marz and Taino stated here that part of their view is that he didn't exist and there is no proof, will they admit that they were wrong and take the time to question the validity of their own disbelief since it seems based on ignorance.

L2, your quotes only prove that there were Christians, not that Christ lived. For example, the Talmud "makes several historical references to Jesus" as your source puts it. However, most of this material dates from 200-500 CE, hardly a contemporary account. But if you want to include it as evidence, then you must regard what it says as historical. What does the Talmud say? Among other things, it states that he was a bastard and a magician who learned his spells in Egypt. It says his father was a soldier named Pantera, and describes how Jesus was stoned and hanged for practicing magic.

What of Pliny then? I don't see how believers 70 years after the Biblical events singing hyms to "Christ as their god" is proof of a historical Jesus.

Tacitus? There are serious questions regarding whether this passage is even geniune. No other source mentions Nero's persecution of Christians in Rome (who weren't present in that city in "multitudes" in 60 AD). Tacitus does not mention Jesus by name, and he writes as if the audience (non-Christians) would be familiar with the name Pontius Pilate ~70 years after he lived. These aren't the methods of a historian working from public records; rather, he was repeating a commonly believed story. But that assumes he wrote the passage in question at all, and there are further problems with that (which, for sake of space, I'll spare you here).

Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" ("the Good," in Greek) not a "Christus" ("the Messiah"). Here's the actual passage: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." The "he" is Claudius. L2, are you telling us that Jesus was in Rome in 55 AD instigating Jews? I have the sinking feeling your getting this from Josh McDowell, who is notorious for poor scholarship and questionable intellectual integrity.

Never heard of Phlegan. The only mention of darkness in that time is a secondhand reference to Thallus referring to the belief by Christians that a darkness covered the earth. In any case, astronomers can project backward the course of eclipses, and it didn't happen. No contemporary writers (who often wrote of such things) mention an eclipse or (as Matthew put it) a darkness covering the world. No one mentions the saints emerging from their graves.

That the Qur'an mentions Jesus is immaterial, it was written in the 7th? century.

The lives of several parties involved in the story of Christ are in the perfect place and times as to coincide with that of a man who lived in that exact time period. Herod, Pontius, The Jewish judge who condemned Jesus (I forget his name).
Not sure what you mean by that first sentence, but let's look at the people. Herod is, in the Bible, told to have issued an edict known as the "Slaughter of the innocents." There is just no way this is historical. Historians don't mention it, and it would have prompted an instant revolt. It's written into the story to draw parallels between Jesus and Moses. Pilate? This guy hated his subjects. And yet the gospels say he allowed the Jews to free a prisoner "by tradition." There is no record of such a tradition, and it's absurd to think that this most anti-jewish procurator would allow a criminal or seditionist to be freed. So...these people lived during the appropriate time...so? Given their treatment in the gospels, it seems they were simply convenient characters for the narrative.

Never mind the fact that you have the DETAILED records of several people who DEFINITLY lived in that time.
Did Peter, Paul, Mark and John INVENT a man?
Paul never met Jesus (and fought with those who did) and makes only the vaguest references to him in his epistles. He doesn't cite Jesus' words even when it would benefit his case to do so, and he seems distinctly unaware of Jesus' life. Indeed, Paul's writings form one basis for most arguments for ahistoricity.

Even without the Divine stuff, he would have to be regarded as the greatest Philosopher who has ever lived.
Forget the Theoretical. The ideological aspects of his tenets on "good" and the meaning of life and living well are as close to perfection as has ever been laid out.
And pretty much none of it was original (Hell is the primary exception). Some of it is questionable, such as his advice to those who "commit adultery" by thinking about it to cut out their eyes (Matt 5:27). Jesus never spoke against slavery; compare this to Musonius Rufus (1st century CE), who went as far as a philosopher without a deathwish could in calling for abolition of the institution.

He is a journalist with the Chicago Tribune (i think) and went about the investigations like a trial lawyer would.
Really? How many critics of Christianity did Strobel interview for that book? Don't bother to check, I know the answer. Zero. He attacks their views at length, but doesn't seek responses from any of them. Is that what a trial lawyer would do?

You are then caught in CS Lewis' "Trilemma"
Either Jesus was a Liar, a Mad Man or what he claimed.
Heh, the infamous false trilemma of Mr. Lewis: lord, liar or lunatic. The problems with this are many, but briefly put: 1) He could simply have been a moral teacher who was posthumously given deific status by disillusioned followers; 2) he might not have existed at all (legend); 3) he might have existed decades before the time written of him and impressed a group of followers who built a legend around him (lore).

Why would they invent a Religion? None of them died or lived with wealth, they were persecuted and lead hard lives, many after leaving lives of privledge to promote the teachings of man who never existed? huh?
A short answer is impossible, but briefly: Imagine the person you believed was the Messiah, who you left your life for, who you (in Peter's case) betrayed, who you expected to bring the power of God to earth...died. And then nothing happened. Major bummer. Unbelievable. But...then you have a "vision," a dream, or an "experience" of your master's presence. It gives you hope, and you tell others, who also gain hope. Others also experience this presence in their way, and so there is a belief in resurrection, the master is still alive somehow, and the movement continues.

The above applies to those who new Jesus firsthand. If he didn't exist or existed decades previously, well, people fight hard for things they believe are true.

So, where does this leave us? I should probably post some current ideas of what happened separately, and perhaps I'll do so. Note that I am NOT saying that Jesus didn't exist. Honestly, I don't know, and before I investigated some theories of ahistoricity, I took it for granted that he lived. Much research later, after separating good scholarship from dreck, I find the waters significantly muddied. There is some very good research that lends credence to ahistoricity. Far from being some brain dead Hartmut theory, the position has genuine support. Rather than dismiss it outright, read up on it. You might be surprised.

As an aside, I assure you that my debate experience extends well outside these boards. It's been a little hobby of mine for some years, though I don't bother with it so much these days (my interests have shifted to other directions).

I've been studying this kind of thing for about 20 years, and every time I think I have a fair grasp of it all, I find a whole wing of literature and study yet untouched. There's a ton of information out there, and it behooves one to check out both sides as much as possible (or else you'll buy into things like Josh McDowell books).

I'd like to recommend a book that attempts to "prove god," and which does so in an almost scientific manner. It's titled, appropriately enough, The Existence of God and is by Richard Swinburne. If I get back into theology, it's the first book I'll pick up. While the author himself recognizes the faults of his approach, it's a very appreciable methodological effort. I think you (L2) would enjoy it. Cheers,

Do you doubt Julius Caesar ever lived? No? Why not? You believe in his existance for the exact same reasons why most people dont doubt that Jesus lived.

In hindsight, the persecution of Christians was surprisingly brief given the press it gets, but it wasn't lacking in brutality.

It was pretty bad for Christians for two to three hundred years. I don't have the time to get some sources, but people like Nero were very, very brutal, and it actually did last for quite some time.

Remember that it did last long enough for people who were not Christians to see over and over again people who absolutely refuse to deny the existance of their god, even through the most brutal of punishment. That was the first big appearance of martyr's who died year after year and still would not break. (It is possible I may not be aware of other people dying so boldly for their religion though.)

It happened everywhere, there was not much of a safe haven for the Christians except for heaven. This also happened in the history of the Jews though.. Which is interesting if you think about it.

--

A question and a nice little interuption in my train of thought!

I heard that the man playing Jesus (who did great in Count of Monte Christo by the way) was struck by lightning then immediately stood up and was able to walk away perfectly fine. Is this without a doubt true?? I have heard people say it, but I have not heard anything directly from the mouths of people that worked on the movie.

--

Also, defending what I said with saying Jesus is the most important person to ever live... There isn't anyone else who has effected mankind on a scale like he has except for other religious leaders like Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, Confucious, etc.. Before Christianity Hinduism was probably the largest religion, but it was replaced, and Christianity is still the most "popular" religion. (Unless Islam has recently moved up from second place, or the teacher of my biblical literature class was a liar. ;p)

In almost two thousand years, every huge event as been greatly effected by Christianity existing. The fall of the Roman empire, a numerous amount of wars such as the Crusades.. I could go on and on and on. It just is the over all way of life.

I would have to say whoever the men who wrote the Old Testament could have more of an impact.. Which would have me almost saying God is the only possible "person" who has changed history more.

Which was what I was saying in the first place wasn't I? :b

so much literature on Philosophers and the take they had on christianity, jesus and the bible itself.


One of my personal favorites is "A Confessions" by Leo Tolstoy.

Its more about him finding happiness in a belief in religion and a distaste for the "church" but none the less he goes about the reading of such a thing in disgustingly informative way.

Missed this!

You mean the words of Lucas, Matthews, Paulus and the others? The book compiled some threehundred years after Jesus death? Yeah, it will still be a important book in 1000 years from now. And so will the words of Plato, Confusius, Buddha, Mohammed and the other old bestsellers.

You have a great point here. There is evidence that says the gospel of Mark is the oldest and was written only like 20-40 years after Jesus died.. But there is also a source of information that was destroyed that was written before Mark, because Mark.

The story of Jesus was preached, and the preachers could not directly talk to everyone could they? Especially since a number of them if not all of them became martyrs.

So anyway.. How reliable are stories that were told orally after a good number of years?

The only proof I can think of to that is the Roman scholars who recorded history and wrote down some about the rumored miracles.

Do you doubt Julius Caesar ever lived? No? Why not? You believe in his existance for the exact same reasons why most people dont doubt that Jesus lived.
/sigh, L2, you really should research some of these arguments before offering them up like this.

*We have books by Caesar, such as The Civil War and The Gallic Wars. We have nothing written by Jesus.
* We have contemporary enemies of Caesar, such as Cicero, reporting on him. Unless we accept authentic authorship of non-Pauline epistles by apostles, we have nothing written by Jesus' contemporaries (and certainly nothing outside his inner circle).
* We have coins, inscriptions, and records of battles involving Caesar that originate from his time. We have no such physical evidence for Jesus.
* Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon is attested to by the most prominent historians of his day: Tacitucs, Suetonius, Appian, Plutarch, etc. These historians, in turn, cite other contemporary sources. Our knowledge of Jesus is limited to anonymous documents penned 30-90 years after the alleged time of death.
[drawn from Richard Carrier]

Our evidence for Caesar is far different in quality and quantity, and far superior to that of Jesus.

It was pretty bad for Christians for two to three hundred years. I don't have the time to get some sources, but people like Nero were very, very brutal, and it actually did last for quite some time.
I'd like to see more support for this position, if you can find it.
In almost two thousand years, every huge event as been greatly effected by Christianity existing.
Even if true, this doesn't establish Christianity's veracity. Popularity isn't a valid proof; there are far better ways to examine religion than taking a poll =)

You have a great point here. There is evidence that says the gospel of Mark is the oldest and was written only like 20-40 years after Jesus died.. But there is also a source of information that was destroyed that was written before Mark
You might be thinking of the Quelle, considered by biblical scholars to be one of the source materials for the gospels. Quelle is a collection of sayings (pericopes) that comes from the oral tradition. Mark used part of this material for his gospel (and, it seems, structured it over the works of Homer as I've detailed in previous threads). Luke and Matthew adopted Mark and other Quelle sayings for their gospels. John kinda did his own thing =)

So anyway.. How reliable are stories that were told orally after a good number of years?
Damn good question! Ever read Snopes? It's interesting to see how the stories reported there often change significantly in just a couple years of transmission. Place these stories in a time when superstition reigned, put them in the mouths of believers, and...maybe the reliability gets trashed along the way? We know that many biblical texts suffered alterations over time, and that was scriptual errors. How much worse could oral transmission be?

The only proof I can think of to that is the Roman scholars who recorded history and wrote down some about the rumored miracles.
Mainly they wrote about the miracles performed by their own emperors =)

Do you doubt Julius Caesar ever lived? No? Why not? You believe in his existance for the exact same reasons why most people dont doubt that Jesus lived.

No, no, for the reasons Mandari allready stated, and no.

However, I *do* doubt a lot of the hype about the emperors. For example, I do not believe that Shakespears description of the events surrounding JC:s death are acurate. And I'm pretty sure that the common impression of Caligula and Drusilla is nothing but petty slander. Caligula was murdered, and history was written by followers and servants of the murderer who took over the throne. What little objective evidence exists indicates that what Caligula really shared with his sister was his throne, not his bed.

Even without the Divine stuff, he would have to be regarded as the greatest Philosopher who has ever lived.
Forget the Theoretical. The ideological aspects of his tenets on "good" and the meaning of life and living well are as close to perfection as has ever been laid out.

Eh, wtf?
In the whole new testament, there's only ONE single statement that is the least bit interesting from a philosophical point of view. that's the golden rule, and it's one of the most (or simply THE most) important principle of ethics here is. If Jesus had invented it, then it would have been a great achivement. However, many other philosophers said it long before him. For example...

Konfucius (Kong-fu-tsi) (551-479 BC)
Buddha (563-483 BC)
Aristoteles (384-322 BC)
Hillel - a holy man in jewish culture (10 BC)
Platon (427-343 BC)

On the other hand, there's a LOT of bullshit that the new testament claim to be said by Jesus. Christians should be happy with the fact that the new testament is such a unreliable source (e.i. written so long after Jesus death), considering the claims it makes. The classic advice about cutting out your eyes (and chopping of your hands) have allready been mentioned.

As for the unreliable source part, how did Judas really die?
What did he do with the 30 silver coins?

According to APG 1:18, he invested the money in a piece of land, and then died suddenly from some kind of accident or divine intervention. According to MATT 27:5 however, he threw away the money and hung himself.

No.. i think the point is the same.
The Gospels were written by people who gave a history of a man they knew.
These people existed.

So are they all Liars, Madmen, or did they actually know a man named Jesus.

Yes I pulled Caesar out of history at random. I can just as easily say Caesar never wrote those books. And those people made up the man Caesar as a front to give the people a hero and a figurehead to rule with.
Why is that any more of a stretch than saying Jesus never lived?
If the records of Jesus can be forged or pieces of Fiction, then certainly so can anything that claims Caesar was a actual man.
Bottom line is all we have to go to show that any person existed is the written records of the people that knew him. Since that is the only evidence possible, we can be as sure about his life as that of any other man in that time.

Edeina.
Yes he stacks up with Confuscious and beyond.
read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ser..._the_Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount)
Jesus said he had come to save Mankind.
And it is undeniable that he did
His teachings served as a Lighthouse for Western Civilization and our cultures and values are formed on its bedrock.
Billions have followed and believed the teachings of a this man.
So I can see why you want to ignore that fact that he even lived.
Was all this the creation of a Liar, a Madman or someone who was what he said?

>>"Jesus said he had come to save Mankind.

That's a religious statement, not a philosophical one. It's interesting enough if you beleieve he is the messiah, but not otherwise. And we was talking about how much his teaching contributed to philosophy "Even without the Divine stuff". Right?

>>"So I can see why you want to ignore that fact that he even lived."

I don't.
On the contrary, I do think that it's more likely that he existed then that he didn't. Same thing with Julius Cesar, by the way. It is theoretically possible that Julius never existed.

HOWEVER, while both hoaxes are unlikely, the Julius hoax is FAR more unlikely then the Jesus hoax. It's much much easier to fake writings about a man decades and centuries after his death, especially if you work in another country then where he lived, then it is to fake huge amounts of detailed historical records, books written by the person himself, and so on.

>>"Was all this the creation of a Liar, a Madman or someone who was what he said?"

IF the new testament describe him accurately, then I think he was the same kind of liar or madman that we encounter on a daily basis in this world. Selfproclaimed prophets and messiahs isn't exactly rare. However, that book was written long after his death, mostly or wholly by people who had never met him. It's thus safe to assume that it isn't a accurate description of what he really said. I find it reasonable to believe that he was a normal, sane, religious leader, and that the extravagant claims was attributed to him after his death.

While we are on the subject, have the news of the Bride of Christ reached the US press? Here in Sweden we have a village called Knutby. It have been a lot of talk about it lately, because a local cult botched itself a bit. Murders and adultery and shit, commited by one of the apostles of the local messiah.

The cult is ruled by the new messiah. This woman is the girlfriend of Jesus Christ, and the Good Lord is not a polygamist. No, she is the one and only love of our Lord. Soon he will marry her, and all of mankind will be their wedding guests. And thus the world will be saved. Amen.

Well, I *do* believe that she is honest, that she believes her own bullshit. Her cult does, anyway. And in their eyes, the priest who freaked out is simply the local Judas.

If the records of Jesus can be forged or pieces of Fiction, then certainly so can anything that claims Caesar was a actual man.

Amen.

The Gospels were written by people who gave a history of a man they knew.
These people existed.
The gospels were written anonymously. These "historians" didn't even sign their own names to their works. Tradition gave the gospels their names. All that we have regarding these people is tradition and the writings, so scholars look at the writings to glean what they can of the writers. But to say these anonymous works are the product of those whose names are ascribed to them is a matter of faith, not fact.

Yes I pulled Caesar out of history at random. I can just as easily say Caesar never wrote those books. And those people made up the man Caesar as a front to give the people a hero and a figurehead to rule with.
Why is that any more of a stretch than saying Jesus never lived?
Ibudin, you'd do better to "amen" something with greater veracity, heh. This is the argument of someone who has no real arguments left. Historians have various criteria for how much credence they give historical events and persons. For example, do enemies of the person give accounts similar to allies? If so, then the existence of the person or event gets a boost. If a historian accurately depicts one event or person, then other events or persons described by the historian get a boost. History is an uncertain field at all times, but as in science it gets by through weighing probability via the evidence.

I've already cited the evidence for Caesar. Could it all be forged? Sure, just as the existences of George Washington, Confucius and Babe Ruth could all have been forged. But the probability of this being the case is beneath consideration. For your example, it's a stretch because of the evidence. 4 anonymous documents written 35-90 years after the subject's alleged death just don't stack up to contemporary evidence for the existence of Caesar.

Jesus said he had come to save Mankind.
And it is undeniable that he did
He saved a considerable percentage of mankind from living full lives free of torture and conquest. Is that what you mean?

The "lord, liar, or lunatic" example also still doesn't hold. More likely, if he existed he was simply another fallible human. One with some good (if recycled) ideas, and one with some poor ideas; a man of great charisma who -- willingly or despite himself -- cultivated in his followers a belief that he was the Messiah. Certainly the time was ripe for it. Belief in the coming of the Messiah was at a fever pitch at that time and contributed to the Judaic Revolt in 70 CE. You can see this belief reflected both in the gospels and in Paul, where it's obvious that they expected the parousia at any moment.

But it never happened (unless you're a preterist). Still, once a belief takes hold it's awful tough to get rid of, and finally some unknown persons decided to put it all down on paper. At least a dozen gospels were in circulation at the time, in addition to many more other writings, but only a few eventually made the cut. Alone, they just aren't very good evidence for what really did happen around that time, and various contradictions only muddy the waters.

I'm open to either possibility regarding Jesus' existence. However, actually studying this stuff leads me to the conclusion that there is a valid case for ahistoricity that makes it as likely as not that a Jesus such as that written of in the bible actually was.

Jesus said he had come to save Mankind.
And it is undeniable that he did
I deny that.
Billions have followed and believed the teachings of a this man.
If billions served counts, Ray Croc is obviously the 2nd coming then...

Probably right Thormir ..I picked a piss poor quote of L2's to use but he has his points and you have many as well that prior to reading it never thought about. I am up in the air about religion and have been for most of my life. I just have a hard time believing so many people for so many years believe deeply in something that doesn't exist and was made up entirely..although it most certianly could be.

It's my goal to introduce ideas (and evidence for them) that people haven't considered or heard of. If you're getting something like that out of this thread, then I've fulfilled my goal. =)

Please pardon the following copy-and-paste from the site: www.christian--faith.com/ (http://www.christian--faith.com/)

"Christian Faith: Importance of the Early Record for the Creed
One of the biggest arguments against the Christian faith is that the resurrection story is a myth that developed over as much as a century after Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross. It was originally thought that the gospel accounts were written as much as 100 years after Jesus walked the earth. Recent scholarship in manuscript reliability and textual criticism now places the gospels at 30 to 50 years after Jesus. Why is the above passage so important? Because Biblical scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above scripture at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ. This is dramatic, because those same scholars would hold that this basic creed for the Christian faith developed far too quickly for a myth to develop and distort the historical record of the resurrection. "

It is not very likely that Jesus was merely a myth. If this was written down so soon after his death, there would still be some people alive who had seen Jesus with their own eyes. They would be able to call "BS" if the gospels were full of lies, or if they knew Jesus never existed, because some of these people were actually there to see it happen.

Hmmm, the quote is a bit confusing, or perhaps referring to a passage that's not included. It says that the gospels were written 30-50 years post-Jesus, then says 3-5 years (so I'm guessing the quote is missing the passage it refers to).

Anyway, the gospel of Mark seems to have been written around the time of the Judaic Revolt (70 CE), though it may have been written a few years earlier. Matthew and Luke came 5-10 years after Mark, and John was anywhere from 90-120 CE (probably earlier than later, though).

Here are a few of the problems with your last paragraph:
* Paul was the earliest Christian writer, but though he wrote soon after Jesus' alleged death date, he seems to know very little of Jesus' life and teachings.

* We can see in the modern day how quickly tales are fabricated, stories change, and how witnesses to the same event disagree with one another. Translate this to a superstitious time and members of downtrodden sect of Jews, and it's not a stretch to guess that belief and legend could arise quickly.

* Attractive co-worker just completely derailed my train of thought mid-stream. One more thing. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Mark wasn't trying to write a biography. Rather, he was taking the basic teachings of Jesus and building a narrative around them, with Homer's writings as his guide. This literary technique wasn't unusual in antiquity (compare Virgil's Aeneid/i] to Homer's I) and served Mark by comparing Jesus favorably to the ancient Greek hero, Achilles. This was lost on later writers and the less sophisticated readers, who took it at face value (though Matthew and Luke both adopt some literary techniques for their retellings). What you have, then, is a fictionalized account of a story or legend, kind of like what you see on TV at times ("inspired by a true story"), but which is taken at face value by those who don't know any better.

The conclusions might not be true, but they are plausible.

Recent scolarship, huh?
Propaganda sites refering to alledged science in general without any specific references to actual science, that's not entirely trustworthy.

Also, there's a lot of "christian science" out there, "proving" that the earth is really 6000 years old and all that kind of bullshit.

Anyway.
For arguments sake, lets say the whole story was written while Jesus was still alive. And that it was written in the same part of the world as Jesus was active. It wasn't, but lets say it was.

Then it becomes much more unlikely that Jesus never existed. However, it doesn't become more likely that the hype was true. Most "messiahs" get that kind of hype during their lifetime. Including L. Ron Hubbard (the psychopath who made up scientology) and the leader of the cult that did the gas attack aganist Tokyo subways. Alsy, I bet that the previously mentioned "Bride of Christ"will have similar hype within a few years, if her cult survives...

Alsy, I bet that the previously mentioned "Bride of Christ"will have similar hype within a few years, if her cult survives...

A thought just struck me on the idea of hype.

We're in the information age. Yet, is this woman very well known outside a small geographic area? In 20 years, will everyone have forgotten about her?

L. Ron Hubbard has been around for how long? Yet he doesn't even have a big following in the U.S, where has has access to massive amounts of media coverage if he did something noteworthy?

Compare that to the first few centuries. Christianity grew. Despite the fact that there were no websites. No newspapers. No chat channels flashing events across the world in seconds.

Anyway. Back to another typical internet discussion.

The basic fact remains that with a totally nonpartisan and uninvolved viewpoint, Christianity is a Philosophy.
It is a code for a way of life and living that has had a greater impact on Western Civilization than any other since the man started writing things down.
Thormir. You cant deny that Western Civilization has christianity as its bedrock.. so you attack even that as flawed and inheriantly evil.
Men are bad.. people are flawed.. The ideal remains.
The IDEAL is unwavering. The philosophy is undeniable.
If you want to take on Christianity head on.. Go after the ideas. Attack the validity of the ideal Jesus put forward as false or flawed.
Its hard to do that. Because you look at what he said and the life he advocated people live and it is as solid as a mountain, its longevity attests to that.
Most people when going after Christianty dont want to confront that. Instead they attack from the sides. Chipping away at the things that really dont matter, the trivial and the non-important.
Whats important is the message. The message has resonated for 2000 years!
Civilizations built around it
Great works of art.
Buildings and creations that have stirred mans soul.
Lives devoted to it.
Christianty has guided mankind in the western hemisphere (and beyond) into the most dynamic, most free most open, most moral era in the history of this planet.

Yet Edeina... this is the work of a madman? Everything around us and everything man has done has its roots in lunacy?
The philosophy of Jesus created a unique religion in which a divine ideal was obtainable by anyone. For the first time it didnt matter what your blood line was, or if you lived a strict life governed by a code of ritualized religious laws.. The most important thing, and greatest form of worship was in how you as an individual lived your life.

IF thats Madness... we should all be so crazy.

How many people were killed and tortured in jesus' name?

The irony is that Christianity spread precisely because its ideal wasn't achieved, or even sought. It spread through force of arms and was maintained for centuries by the influence of powerful men who had force of arms. Turning the other cheek happened only in stories told to keep the little people happy, tales from the lives of the saints.

Another reason for its rise to pre-eminence is the loss of writings from antiquity and the abysmal education of the average Christian until the Enlightenment. Plato, Aristotle, and the great philosophers of old were abandoned, many of their works destroyed by the church, leaving only the Bible and its interpreters.

Look at Musonius Rufus, who I mentioned earlier. He was such a favorite in Rome that, when Vespasian banished philosophers from the capital, he exempted Musonius. Rufus wrote of educating all persons and desired an end of slavery...you don't see Jesus taking such a stand in his "perfect philosophy." The longevity of slavery in Christian nations attests to this weakness.

If you want to take on Christianity head on.. Go after the ideas.
None of the philosophical ideas are original to Christianity, so this point isn't very strong. What is original? Hell. And it's been gone after to the point where many Christian have redefined Hell to soften its harshness.

Christianty has guided mankind in the western hemisphere (and beyond) into the most dynamic, most free most open, most moral era in the history of this planet.
This is extremely questionable. On the contrary, I think history shows that dynamism, freedom and openness arose despite Christianity, despite the church(es), despite the dogma. What you cite was instead the result of the Enlightenment, when men could speak freely and openly without fear of torture and execution from the Christians. Morality is too fluid to address, but over time we've seen Christian views of morality change to suit that of society.

this is the work of a madman?
Well, it's written that he cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit when figs weren't in season. That's pretty crazy to me.

The most important thing, and greatest form of worship was in how you as an individual lived your life.
But even this isn't strictly true. Different sects define the way you must live to achieve salvation differently. And how often do people find reasons not to follow Jesus' words?

Have you given all your money to the poor, being content with only food and clothing? (LK 12:33). Do you regard all divorcees who remarried as adulterers? (Mk 10:2-12, Lk 16:18) . Are these truly part of a great philosophy?

Obviously, Christianity has produced good people (or were they good people who happened to be Christian?). Obviously, Christianity had a major impact on western civilization; no one would deny this. You can be a Christian and live a good life (or a not so good life), though that belief system isn't necessary to do so. But my concern is with the history of the religion, the likelihood of its validity, and its influence on current affairs. How "nice" it is doesn't really figure in.

How many people were killed and tortured in jesus' name?

wtf does this even mean? "in the name of"

So a man can shoot 15 women in NYC in the 70s and because he claims his dog told him to do it,, his Dog is evil?

but but.. he killed people "in the name of" Fido!!!

People being sociopaths have nothing to with anything other than they are sociopaths

"Another reason for its rise to pre-eminence is the loss of writings from antiquity and the abysmal education of the average Christian until the Enlightenment. Plato, Aristotle, and the great philosophers of old were abandoned, many of their works destroyed by the church, leaving only the Bible and its interpreters.

Look at Musonius Rufus, who I mentioned earlier. He was such a favorite in Rome that, when Vespasian banished philosophers from the capital, he exempted Musonius. Rufus wrote of educating all persons and desired an end of slavery...you don't see Jesus taking such a stand in his "perfect philosophy." The longevity of slavery in Christian nations attests to this weakness."


The abysmal education of the average 99.9 percent of the population before the enlightenment. You also have to credit religion for putting in place some systems of education and centers of learning. Its just that in the age of enlightenment, science broke away from serving religion and politics.

The New Testament is not pro-slavery, and though it doesn't specifically take on slavery to my knowledge, it casts all christians into the same lot with slaves and uses the Roman ideas of redemption and adoption as images for our relationship with Christ. Any Christian truly understanding the gospels understands the evils of slavery, and in fact it can be strongly argued that the emancipation movement would have gotten nowhere except for the work, martyrdom, and struggle of christians who believed in that principle. There are many evils that Jesus didn't specifically address. I take your point, and I admit I've learned a lot from reading your posts on this subject, but I think you tend to generalize a little one-sidedly. The longevity of slavery was due to the relative wealth of these nations. It was wrong, but it was not due to Jesus' teachings.

People being sociopaths have nothing to with anything other than they are sociopaths

/agree Lleauaric
But this works both ways.
If he did good things in the name of his doG, it wouldn't mean that the doG would be to praise for his action. Same with his God.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>None of the philosophical ideas are original to Christianity, so this point isn't very strong. What is original? Hell. And it's been gone after to the point where many Christian have redefined Hell to soften its harshness. <hr></blockquote>

What about the idea of compassion, not tolerance? Edeina's much vaunted "Golden Rule" doesn't really support that.

I'm just curious actually. heh.

No Edeina..

We are all responsible for our own actions. The man can Follow the example of the Dog, but it is his own freewill. If the man went up and pissed on your flowerbed, you wouldnt blame the dog.

The New Testament is not pro-slavery, and though it doesn't specifically take on slavery to my knowledge...
Jesus says nothing of slavery, though it was widely practiced and he encountered slaves during his mission. Could this paragon of virtue (and, as some believe, avatar of an omni-benevolent deity) possibly not comment on this pervasive evil? It's difficult for me to believe, honestly.

Here are some New Testament comments on slaves:

Ephesians 6: 5-9
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Colossians 3:22-24
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord....It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Evidently, what is right and fair doesn't include freedom...
Titus 2:9-10
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
There are others, including some OT stuff, but you get the idea. The best you get is a decree for masters to be kind to their slaves. Take it as you will.

The longevity of slavery was due to the relative wealth of these nations. It was wrong, but it was not due to Jesus' teachings.
You believe that slavery would have continued if a gospel (or all the gospels!) had Jesus say something like, "And let no man keep another as a slave, for enslaving another is a great sin. The master of a slave shall find himself worse than a slave in Hell." I doubt slavery would have ceased, but surely such a forceful decree would ameliorate the problem greatly down the centuries!

Quotes from the bible about slavery
Now, if that doesn't sound like something the rich and powerful cooked up to help control the masses, I don't know what does.

You are applying 20th century values to 1st Century reality.

The reality was that in Roman Society slavery wasnt like you know it today. Roman slaves were given homes and had protection rights under the law. Slaves RAN the Roman Empire. They did all its work, populated its Armies, and had a chance to buy their way into freedom.
Jesus wasnt their to cause a uprising, or inspire war. He never called for people to rise up and over throw their masters. That would have totally contradicted everything he was saying.
Part of his message was that you can be a slave or a whore a Rich man or a Queen and you are equal to God.
Finding peace and enlightenment had nothing to do with your property or lack of it.

Remember this was a man who was taken, beaten, and put through the most excruciating type of torture man has invented and at the end begged for forgiveness for the people who did it to him. And you expect him to incite a riot in the slaves.. the poor, the core target of his message?
The message is sound.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, Give to God what is God's

See, the most important point to me in all this is the fact that we're talking about things that happened (or didn't) 2000 years ago.
There is absolutely no possible way for anyone to know what happened there. Absolutely everything is based on "what people told eachother and at the end, one guy wrote down what he heared, a version that was altered many many times to sound as exciting as possible". And this original text was altered again and again. How many times do you think the bible got "updated" so it fits the needs of the church and their needs at that time?

I have not such a big problem in believeing in Plato and Confucius, because their "stories" are not about a religion and thousands of mracles and stories, their "opus" is the textes, philosophies they wrote and lived. There's a huge difference between having a philosophical text from plato and being tole a story about the miracles a man did.
A text remains a text, the text is either good or bad. It either makes sense or not. A story about a man and the miracles he did is nothing else but this, a story. A Legend. You all know how damn much the stories we hear in media are different from the truth. Whatever we hear from our politicians is far from the truth and is being explained the way it fits them. Now imagine how incredibly unaccurate things must be when you have thousands of poeple telling the same story, making it exciting and so on until one person writes it down, and then you still have thousands of years of "editing" of this text until today.

Tell your friend a story. And then have him tell the story to another person. Do that 10 times and you have a completely other story. Now multiply this by 1000 and you may somewhat have the same "accuracy" of the story as we have with the bible.

One other thing. Jesus saved us?
What did he do please? Even if the whole story is true, how did he save us? He got nailed on a cross and died. So how did he save us please? Did he fight the plague? Undo all illness? Give peace on earth? Solve the hunger problem? Oppression? Slavery? Actually Jesus (well, the whole christianity) is the number one reason for all those problems.
How in the world did Jesus save us please?

The real question is that since there is good proof of the existence of Jesus, and since Marz and Taino stated here that part of their view is that he didn't exist and there is no proof
This is just one more example of you twisted way of seeing things. I stated (and Marz estonishingly agreed with me) that there is no proof that Jesus existed. This is all. You say that we pretend Jesus didn't exist. Thisis a huge step away from what we did say actually. This is your prblems. Everything is black and white, good or bad. This is why you're also being lead so easily by your government or church. You don't differ. "Either you're for us, or against us".
Oneof the worst statements ever, and you live it.

One other thing. Jesus saved us?
What did he do please? Even if the whole story is true, how did he save us? He got nailed on a cross and died. So how did he save us please? Did he fight the plague? Undo all illness? Give peace on earth? Solve the hunger problem? Oppression? Slavery? Actually Jesus (well, the whole christianity) is the number one reason for all those problems.
How in the world did Jesus save us please?

Very few claims that Jesus saves us in this life. Instead, they claim he saves us FROM this life. The message is: "Die, and live happily ever after". Unless you believe in hell, of course. Then the message is "Die, and live happily ever after... or else."

Very interesting subject. I don't think jesus is really the problem tho. He may have existed, he may have had powers and helped people and all the things the bible tell you. The problems comes after, once he died. When the church took over and "humans" started ruling it. Past that point the church merely became a way to control people and keep them stupid,it happened for hundred of years. Why all those wars for god ? Hehe for money thats it.

These day church don't control people that much now due to the very easily access to knowledge that tend to ruin a LOT of the religions teaching and theories.

Anyway will go see this movie, sound fairly interesting so to speak :)

Jesus never said he would turn this world into a Utopia. He never promised to make everyone happy and remove everyones problems.

What he said was that this life is hard, bad shit happens, but heres some hope, and heres a guidelight to make it through the darkness.
Once again, back on the Cross.
Jesus in Agony had a moment of weakness.

"God, Why have you Forsaken me!"

This line is as powerful as any other in the entire bible.
There was this man, as perfect and as close to God as you can get in faith, and the hardships and pain and horribleness of what was happening to him even caused him to lose faith.
This is a HUGE message to people. Horrible awful bad terrible shit is GOING to happen to all of us. Even the strongest will have their faith tested.. and they may fail. And thats ok.
When someone you Love dies, or something horrible happens to you, you can go to the highest rooftops and scream obscenties at God. Its ok.

In the holy words of Robb Base.
Joy and pain
Like sunshine and rain
Joy and pain
Like sunshine and rain
Verse 1:
Well I'm the new kid, I'm just comin' up
A lot of rappers think that I can't tear it up
Well I'm 'a show 'em and ignore 'em
And when they think I ain't lookin' I floor 'em
I mean take 'em out I keep groovin'
A slick bass line keep the beat movin'
They can't take it they just fake it
They wonder how the Rob Base make it
I get ill, you know the deal
Cuz this is how the Rob Base feels
Chorus
Verse 2:
I keep smokin', hot like fire
You had the turn, now retire
Don't talk back, I'm not a new jack
Cuz I'm fresher than you, an' you're whacked
I keep tryin', I'm not lyin'
Up to number 1 is where I'm flyin'
I won't slow down cuz I'm the new kid
With the devastatin' sound that hits
In the house where I used to practice
No one knew the Rob exists, but now
I'm gettin' greedy, don't lead me
The wrong way cuz is just might, might, might
Bring me down, I'll have to fight to get back up
Move away cuz I just won't slack up

Thats not terribly relevant.. but I like it.

Jesus reconciled man to God. You can run around and ask "what about that sin, and what about this sin" but none of that matters anymore. Those who are in Christ are not in sin. Period.

See the Jews in the old testament had all these rules they had to follow because they asked for them. God said I have a better way and sent Jesus who died so they didnt have to worry about the laws only about their personal relationship with God. Now everyone is running around trying to make up new laws cause they miss having them. Typical.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler didn't found a religion but you can't deny he changed the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



yes I can. He has no lasting or temporary contribution. The world was changed by the events he had a part in creating.

www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2004-02-19/feature.html/1/index.html (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2004-02-19/feature.html/1/index.html)

...oh...and even Jack Chick believes that once Jesus died that the Church used the teachings of the bible to control mankind...

The Death Cookie!!! (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp)

When someone you Love dies, or something horrible happens to you, you can go to the highest rooftops and scream obscenties at God. Its ok.

Isn't there a prohibition about taking that particular god's name in vain?

You guys argue too much about religion.. This string was supposed to get reactions from The Passion.

Anyway, I went and saw it today.. Truly a movie you need to see yourself. Don't listen to what other people say about it, you'll get a personal opinion from it.

I myself liked it, made me feel a way I can't really say in words...

You are applying 20th century values to 1st Century reality.
So Jesus' values shouldn't be taken to be our values? Seriously, all Jesus had to say was that he disapproved of slavery, that it was a sin. Or Paul could have said it. Or any of the other main characters of the Bible.

Remember this was a man who was taken, beaten, and put through the most excruciating type of torture man has invented and at the end begged for forgiveness for the people who did it to him.
Jesus' followers have inflicted far worse tortures upon their enemies. More on the forgiveness thing momentarily.

There was this man, as perfect and as close to God as you can get in faith, and the hardships and pain and horribleness of what was happening to him even caused him to lose faith.
This is a HUGE message to people.
Yes, it's a message that Jesus was not divine. Forgetting for a moment his various faults, how can one who is equal to god (per most Christian doctrines) lose faith in god? It's been said that at this point the divine spark left the mortal man, but I've show elsewhere just how problematic such a view is.

Now, if you take Jesus as a mortal man who forgives his persecutors, and you find this noble -- more power to you. I don't know that it's a practical view, but it requires some courage to hold it. If it happened as written (and, really, it probably didn't).

The reviews I've read aren't as laudatory as I expected. There is some praise but also agreement on the film's faults. Still don't plan to see it though, so I'll not be getting a firsthand look.

We'll probably see this in the next week or so. I'm relatively sure my wife, who really wants to see it right now, won't like it afterwards because of the graphic violence.

Jesus' followers have inflicted far worse tortures upon their enemies
This is a bullshit.. and more importantly.. an intellectually dishonest statement. You know this is total bullshit, yet you state it. Its worse than a simple lie because you are smart enough to know this.
People who torture and kill are not following the teachings of Jesus. You know this. If you want to have a debate then try to stick to honest and valid points, and leave the cheap attempts at intentional hijacking out.

People who torture and kill are not following the teachings of Jesus. You know this.
Who are you to say the torturers were Christian or not? What gives you the right to judge them so? If you reply that they sinned, well, who has not? And if all sins are indeed equal, then their acts are no worse than stealing hubcaps.

Jesus stated that some would be condemned to eternal suffering in Hell. With a teaching like that, earthly torture is cast under a different light.

I think he (Thormir that is) is referring to things like the time honored practice of executing heretics and jews ( usually by burning but also including torture) by such christian institutions as the Roman Catholic Church. Do you deny the popes were "followers of Jesus"? Never heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Salem witch trials? Any of the wars between protestants and catholics in the middle ages? They all claimed to be christians doing God's work at the time. Would Jesus have condoned any of that? Of course not. But normal people pervert ideas to suit their own prejudices and have done terrible things in the name of Christ. Pretending it did not happen won't win any arguments here.

Of COURSE I deny that people who torture or murder are following the teachings of Christ. It goes completely opposite of what he taught and said.

Just because people CLAIM they are doing "gods work" doesnt mean shit. Its delusion, its manipulation, its outright lying. Man will use whatever tool or edge he has to gain control over other human beings. Use the promise of "socialism", Religion, whatever.

Take for example suicide bombers in Palestine. Are these inherently evil people? No. Of course not. These are people whose culture has backed them into a corner and manipulated into really believing they are fighting for a good righteous cause.
Does Blowing yourself up on a bus with innocent women and children have ANYTHING to do with freedom? or honor? Or Islam? You take a ignorant person, and you use something as a fulcrum to press them and bend them into doing your will.
People dont WANT to be evil. There is a innate desire in human beings to BE good, to be honorable and Noble and heroic. You want a man to do the most heinious thing imaginable, convince him he is doing it for a noble cause.

Do you deny the popes were "followers of Jesus"?
Depends on the Pope. I do not consider a man a Christian by his title or his funny hat. It is your ACTIONS that define you, they define you as a man as completely as they define you as a Christian.
Or in more simple terms. What does being a "father" entail? is it simply impregnanting a woman? No. being a Father is MUCH more than that.. its DEEPER than that. So is being a Man, or a Woman, or a Christian.
Actions, they alone define you.

Who are you to say the torturers were Christian or not? What gives you the right to judge them so? If you reply that they sinned, well, who has not? And if all sins are indeed equal, then their acts are no worse than stealing hubcaps
We arent lining people up here and saying "who is better", this is ANOTHER non point.
All that quote says is that you can never be more Christian than another person when the gauge is your sin. The Analogy used here is: There are 2 rooms, one room is in complete light and the other room is in complete darkness. You are in one room or the other.
But neither sides binds you.
My Sin in this moment does not stop me from being a perfect Christian in the next. We leave our pasts behind us and each new moment is a Gift, a new chance from God.

This is a core tenet of Christianity.

Jesus was on the cross with 2 men beside him. One asked for forgiveness for his sins, and even then on the cross, despite a life drenched in every sin, murder, theft, whatever, he in his last moments was with God. That moment. Nothing else mattered.
This isnt some loophole. Only you and God know what is in your heart, if its honest then it is. Thats why Jesus wants people to love those who hate them, to turn the other cheek, because your tormentor still has the chance to be in the Light, every moment is a new chance.

Life is the greatest gift that we could have ever possibly be given, it should be lived and celebrated that way.

Do you deny the popes were "followers of Jesus"?
Absolutely in fact according to the Bible the Pope is an AntiChrist.

First Timothy 2:5 - There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Tell that to the priest the next time you go to confess.

Pope's weren't even apart of the church till after the 1st century and were never really supposed to exist given the original nature of the Church itself.

My point is most of those folks I mentioned doing all those evil things strongly believed they were christians and were doing God's will. By definition, no one alive is a follower of Jesus because we all fail to live up to his teachings in one way or another. The degree of our deviances vary, but they are there. So what is a christian? What degree of variance makes you a non-christian?

In the history of the church before the reformation, if a person did not obey the commandments of the church they were excommunicated or worse. Anyone can point back to them and say "they were not christians....look at what they did", but the fact is there were no other kind of christians at the time. They were it.

Someday people may point back to our time and mention all the commonplace things we do that are at variance with what Jesus wanted and say none of us are christians either.

Viewing The Passion (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/karnick200402270852.asp)

I haven't seen it yet, but this was a good read.

My point is most of those folks I mentioned doing all those evil things strongly believed they were christians and were doing God's will.
How do you know what was in their minds? I say bullshit.. I say they were sick fucks who enjoyed torturing, maiming, killing, raping.. whatever and used the cover of good intentions and a religion to justify not only in others minds, but their own the horriblness of their actions.


By definition, no one alive is a follower of Jesus because we all fail to live up to his teachings in one way or another.
Again, you just dont get it. The following is in the pursuit of an almost impossible example. If you are trying to be better, trying to be more like the example that Jesus set, then you are not failing. You can never achieve perfection, yet we as humans are as a race and species almost unwavering of our pursuit of it. Didnt you ever hear that song from The Man of La Mancha (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/manoflamanchadonquixote/theimpossibledreamthequest.htm)?

In the history of the church before the reformation, if a person did not obey the commandments of the church they were excommunicated or worse. Anyone can point back to them and say "they were not christians....look at what they did", but the fact is there were no other kind of christians at the time. They were it.
Couple things.
First.. Huge huge huge huge huge generalization. The VAST majority of christians live and lived good lives. A incredibly small minority of people went around doing this stupid shit. People want then almost the same things they want now.. A good life, a happy Family, peace... Thats it.
Secondly. The message of Christianity has never changed. It is the same now as 2000 years ago. We have the incredible advantage of access to knowledge and the ability to educate ourselves and learn for ourselves. People have not always had this. The message was given to them and distilled from clergy or whatever. Sometimes this trust was abused and the message intentionally distorted to give a person power over others.

Someday people may point back to our time and mention all the commonplace things we do that are at variance with what Jesus wanted and say none of us are christians either.
If the message hasnt changed in 2000 years,, why would it change in another 2000? As a matter of fact, It will probably vary little as we no longer rely on word of mouth or cross interpretation of transcripts from dead languages or motivated translators. Barring of course from some Apocalyptic mad max type shit.

LL-

You say they were just sick fucks? Well, heck, they are the ones who spread the Bible to the pagans, made most of the rules the churches swear are doctrine, published all the treatise that define christianity as it is today. If they weren't christians, then who was? The illiterate masses? Oh wait...they were the ones storming the walls of one city or another and killing each other because they were good catholics or protestants. You seem to have a very idealized view of people in the last 2000 years. Every evidence I have seen or read about made plain it is no stretch to say life was brutish, nasty and short in every land where christianity held sway as the official religion, right up till the time when people began to look past christianity for answers.

The message of christianity hasn't changed, but the interpretation and implementation of that message sure have. Look at what has changed in 2000 years. Look at how many splinter sects there are, all with different dogmas, taboos, etc. You have some branches where priests can marry (protestants in general), you had the Mormons encouraging polygamy and claiming a latter day appearance of Christ, you have differing views on divorce, views on the role of priests, a plethora of differences in services, etc. You have services conducted in native languages rather than latin. All of these are drastic changes from the christianity of six or seven centuries ago. Change is happening all the time. It's just not rapid change.

Your statement about the vast majority of christians lead good lives says nothing about those in charge of the church, who defined the rules and gave the orders or the many who willingly carried out their orders because they believed the church could not possibly be wrong. I call bullshit if you think all the violent history of the church was just an anomaly of a few power mongers. Christians are and were ordinary people and people have always been more than willing to persecute others based on differences in culture, religion, ethnicity or any other difference they decide to pick on. Did all individual christians do those terrible things? Of course not. But enough of them did that it is futile to make any case that christianity is innocent of any wrongdoing over the centuries. Too many people have died at the hands of self proclaimed christians for anyone to ignore.

I'm not saying that christians have not also done tremendous things that are more in line with what Jesus would have wanted. Helping the sick, the poor and the oppressed are also to be found in christian history. What I am saying is that the faults of christianity as practiced by many, both present and past, should not be swept under the rug. You can't fix it if you don't recognize the problem and the problem is definitely there.

Every evidence I have seen or read about made plain it is no stretch to say life was brutish, nasty and short in every land where christianity held sway as the official religion, right up till the time when people began to look past christianity for answers.

It really should be noted that civilizations have all been brutal, barbaric, and backwards throughout history... whether they were "Christian" or not. The peasants have always been pawns for whomever had the knowledge or more powerful military.

At least until a republic put the power back in the hands of those same peasants a little over two centuries ago...

Im not trying to fix or hide anything.
Humans are Humans.
Muslim, jewish, Hindu, Christian, whatever.

Most are good, some are bad.
Every evidence I have seen or read about made plain it is no stretch to say life was brutish, nasty and short in every land where christianity held sway as the official religion, right up till the time when people began to look past christianity for answers.
News flash... Life was tough all over. You think life was a picnic in Asia? Or Africa? or South America? Christianity was the cause of life being hard. Life just was. The fact is that the western world has had the Highest standard of living for about the last 1000 years.

The message of christianity hasn't changed, but the interpretation and implementation of that message sure have. Look at what has changed in 2000 years. Look at how many splinter sects there are, all with different dogmas, taboos, etc. You have some branches where priests can marry (protestants in general), you had the Mormons encouraging polygamy and claiming a latter day appearance of Christ, you have differing views on divorce, views on the role of priests, a plethora of differences in services, etc. You have services conducted in native languages rather than latin. All of these are drastic changes from the christianity of six or seven centuries ago. Change is happening all the time. It's just not rapid change.
No change there in the message, just superficial and inconsequential differences.
The last REAL change was when this guy named Martin Luther nailed a few suggestions on a church door. That was at about 1500. That sprouted most of the different sects of Catholism. But none of them have any difference in the message of Christ.
Thats 2000 years... no deviation.
Your statement about the vast majority of christians lead good lives says nothing about those in charge of the church, who defined the rules and gave the orders or the many who willingly carried out their orders because they believed the church could not possibly be wrong. What the hell does it matter? Most people during the time when the church had any political influence maybe heard a couple things a year.. if that.. No newspapers, no TV, no radio.. you know that right? 99.9 of people lived simple lives. The question is why you seem so intent on focusing on what a very very very few did and then try to label all people with it.
I call bullshit if you think all the violent history of the church was just an anomaly of a few power mongers. Christians are and were ordinary people and people have always been more than willing to persecute others based on differences in culture, religion, ethnicity or any other difference they decide to pick on.
Ha.. Damn. you suck up the propaganda like a goldfish sucks water dont ya?
Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Francis of Assisi, Albert Schweitzer, Abraham Lincoln, Michealangelo, Mozart, Bach, Tolstoy. Sir Issac Newton, Louis Pastuer, Gregor Mendal, Helen Keller, Nelson Mandela.. just a few of a VERY VERY long list of people who werent just cursory Christians but were inspired, motivated and to an extent defined by their religous convictions.
Lots of tyrants there huh? Lots of people "more than willing to persecute others"? Or a short list of by any view the most influential, meaningful people who have ever lived.
Go to any prison, go to any hellhole, slum, ghetto, wartorn nation, places where starvation, repression, agony, despair and hopelessnes reign.. You will find a catholic mission trying to bring some light in the darkest of places.
THATS reality.. You want to boo hoo because some Pope or Bishop 600 years ago was a dipshit? Fine, dwell in the inconsquential and the trivial.

But enough of them did that it is futile to make any case that christianity is innocent of any wrongdoing over the centuries. Too many people have died at the hands of self proclaimed christians for anyone to ignore.
Show me a people who DONT have blood on their hands. ITS HUMAN NATURE. Being a christian doesnt immunize you from being a human.
But here is the part you are having trouble grasping. Its really not a difficult concept.
If you act in a way that is not consistant with what Jesus taught, you are not acting in a Christian manner.
If a man walks down the street and says 1000 times, "im non-violent, im non-violent" then shoots the first person he meets, is that man Non Violent? Duh.
Your life is judged by the moment, in the moment you are alive, Here, Now.. The evil you did yesterday does not matter to God, nor does the good you plan to do tomarrow.
Right here.. Right now.
And do yourself a favor.. pick up a history book. Mans inhumanity to man didnt appear magically with the advent of Christianity.. as a matter of fact, all things considered, the Teachings of Jesus have been as great a force, or greater, than any in shaping this world into one that is 1000 times more comfortable and safe and happy than it was 2000 years ago.

What I am saying is that the faults of christianity as practiced by many, both present and past, should not be swept under the rug. You can't fix it if you don't recognize the problem and the problem is definitely there.
If you take a toaster and try to make toast while taking a bath is it the toasters fault if you get fucked up?
The problem is NOT the philopshy or the ideas or the message of Christianity... to quote
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

I like LL's arguments on this, and I think he has put up a pretty good case that its not Christianity that has done all of these terrible things, but a select few in authority in Christianity. But I have a few opinions on things that would lean against LL's view. I, like always will not try and convince anyone with links, and facts hell I really don't give enough of a shit about any of this to put that much effort into it. But I will give my opinion on it and if Im off base, im sure it will be cleared up for me by LL or Gulor or god knows who else has the right answers.

I think there are a lot of people throughout the past 2000 years that have needed to believe in something and Christianity has been a perfect place for them to put their faith. (the only place actually till recently) I think the masses are not that bright and often led astray by the leaders of their chosen religion. In other words, they BELIEVED in the Christian religion (and I think QUITE strongly compared to how people today view their beliefs in their own religions) they believed the people that taught them about their religion, and preached to them, and molded their moralistic views.

LL Says only a small minority of them where doing bad things, and this I agree with. I agree completely only a few bad apples seemed to cause so many bad things to happen over the past 2000 years. The thing is those few bad apples where the people that where in charge, they where the ones that supplied the "correct" understanding of what Christ MEANT in the Bible. And those people where power hungry, and they could give a shit less what "Jesus" wanted, they only cared about what would give them Power, Wealth, and what ever.

While I agree that only a few bad apples caused such grief in the "name of god" or "Jesus" or what ever, I wonder how much of a minority they are when compared to how many where actually in "Power" during the past 2000 years. When you consider those in power during the past 2000 years instead of just those that considered themselves Christian I think it swings from a minority to a majority.

Up until the protestants totally fucked up the whole "Christian law is the only law" way of thinking in the world. Every corrupt power hungry piece of shit in the western world was working his way up the ladder of Christianity. Now the western world power struggle has little or nothing to do with religion so they only pretend to be into what ever the majority of the people they will lead care about.

It is my opinion that over the past 2000 years more suffering than good has been done in "the name of Christ". I say in the name of Christ because I truly think that Jesus Christ would FLIP THE FUCK OUT over what has been done with "his stamp of approval". As if these power hungry ass wipes think that because they are in power, they have a right to claim immunity because of their personal view point on what Jesus was trying to do.


NOTE: I am drunk and SURELY going to regret hitting the "add reply" button tomorrow when I read over this.

I also want to state, I do believe Jesus Christ existed, but I don't believe he was "the Son of God". I simply believe he was a man with a vision, and he tried his damnedest to live life the way he thought it should be. I don't follow any organized religion and I am sickened by most of the organized religions of the world. in my opinion religion itself should have been one of the commandments that could send you to hell.

I do however believe EVERYONE should wonder about life after death, and if you find yourself believing its a possibility you should consider how the way you live your life could effect it.


I look forward to going to see this movie, I hope it inspires a LOT of people to at LEAST ask questions about what god is. I hope that people stop being afraid to talk about thier religion because they are too afraid someone will dissagree with them. The bottom line is, I dont believe its possible for an afterlife according to the things I understand about the universe, but I certainly hope im wrong.

LL conveniently kipped over my paragraph that mentions the good christianity has done, but nowhere do I see him actually refuting that violence was done by and for the church. For every Mother Teresa, there was a Torquemada.

We are also not discussing other religions, we are talking about christianity so bringing up how bad things were elsewhere is not germaine to the discussion. IMO many other religions are even bloodier than christianity. LL took issue with someone saying that christianity has a bloody history. I am arguing that christianity does indeed have a violent history. All the good intentions of Christ notwithstanding, his religion has been used as excuse and cover for any number of atrocites and conquests over the course of centuries, and not just by a handful of people at the top.

Also, I am not arguing that the central message of christianity has changed...but it is in those minor details that have changed that so much blood was shed. All the religious wars of the 16th century in northern Europe were over what we would consider trivial details. Even recently you have had protestants and catholics killing each other in Northern Ireland because they don't want to live under the religiously influenced laws of the other. Yet they consider themselves good christians. Add in what has been done to the jews, Roma, muslims and other religions by christians and I don't think anyone can rightfully claim christianity, as it has been practiced, is a completely pacifist institution. In some places christianity was spread peacefully by exemplary people. In other places it was spread at the end of a sword or by gun.

One last comment...nowhere do I claim christianity is the cause of man's inhumanity to man. Lots of nastiness preceeded christianity and lots of nastiness was/is found in other places. What I am saying is that denying christianity has participated in that nastiness is bullshit. Simple as that. Don't read more into what I am saying than is actually there.

The problem is how you phrase it. When you say "Christianty has done this", or "christianity has that", you imply things that are not true. You would be MUCH more accurate to say "People, who professed to be Christians, did this"
Saying you are something then undertaking actions that are in direct opposition to what you claim to be should prevent a persons classification as such.

Besides. For every Torquemda there is a Mother Theresa? You are deluded.
If you want to live and base your opinions on events that took place 400 years ago... feel free, its your life, come up with any rationalization that makes you feel good. But the fact remains that right here, right now, in this time and for about the past 100 years, Christianity has been the greatest force for good for mankind. Nothing else has even come close. How many missions or soup kitchens, or homeless shelters are run by Christian orginizations in your very hometown? How many hospitals in Calcutta or Africa or wherever poverty and disease are are run by Christians?

Whats your next statement? Are you going to Accuse Roman Catholic Priests of child molestation "In the Name of God"?

LL, I was not aware we were putting a time limit on things here.... if you want to limit things to the last few decades I think you are cheating. I will readily concede that the worst offenses were in the dark ages, but killing folks because they are not christians did not stop there. See Bosnia for a more recent example. Just a little further back and you see a sitting Pope looking the other way and possibly even encouraging the holocaust. Certainly a large number of the folks running the concentration camps were church going folk.

It was mentioned that christians had tortured folks in the past...you jumped all over the poster claiming that was bullshit. I am claiming you are wrong.I have given examples ... you have countered that they weren't really christians.

Yes, we can agree that the perps were people who did not truly follow Christ's teachings. But very few people actually do follow them all... as you said it is an ideal. The fact of the matter is that there were official church sanctions to commit acts of violence and torture in the past. You tell me to read history? I suggest you follow your own advice and read about the Spanish Inquisition or the fun things going on in France and Holland to put down heresies after Luther did his bit.

As for my Torquemada comment, *someone* in the church ordered each and every pogrom against the jews , many other christians carried them out. We are talking hundreds if not thousands of organized efforts to kill or drive away innocent people. Add in the various localized witch burnings, persecutions of other sects of christianity, etc. It is not an insignificant number. You can point to all the soup kitchens, hospitals and orphanges you want to, but it does not change the fact that things were very different for the majority of the time christianity has existed. It has really only been in the last two hundred years or so that all those good works became focus efforts, and that is really due more to the increase in wealth in christian nations to the point they could do such things.

You need to read up on your History.

The REAL reason for the Spanish Inquistion, as ordered, not by Rome, but by the Spanish King and Queen were Economic ones. Even passing mentions to the cause of this articulate as much.
Aside from religious reasons, there were also some very strong political reasons for the Spanish Inquisition. The main political reason for the Spanish Inquisition was that there was a threat to the monarchy. The Christians of Spain, who at the time were the majority, were outraged at the Jews for many reasons, some which refer back to
the religious reasons. The Monarchs of Spain, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, began to realize that if the tension of the citizens increased a little more, riots and mass killing would break out, possibly leading to a religious civil war. The method they used to control the citizens was the Spanish Inquisition. Using the Inquisition, they were able to soothe and calm the majority of the Spanish citizens. At the same time, they believed they were removing the source of the problem. The King, Queen, and the rest of the rest of the entire government was able to secure their positions in the
Monarchy.
The officials were also able to use the Inquisition as a way to fulfill their personal desires: “It is to solve their problems and theirs alone that the Spanish Inquisition was started.” There were many officials who wanted governmental position that were held by Jews. After many futile attempts to get these Jews thrown out of office, the officials had to devise a plan to get the Jews out of
office. The method that they devised was to introduce the Inquisition to Spain. The officials started to spread rumors that the Jews were the cause of all misfortunes including any bad weather, crop, or any other mishap. This was a brilliant plan, since the first Jews tha
the public wanted to be killed were the popular and highranking officials. This immediately opened up the positions that the
officials desired.
The Government officials were also fearful of these powerful Jews. Many Jews had risen up in the political rankings through the years, and this caused other s to fear the potential power of the Jews. They were assuming that if the Jews became too powerful, that they would be a threat to Spain, either by threatening the Monarchy as previously mentioned , or by revolting against the Christian officials and try and take over or overthrow the government, or even
by starting a religious Holy War with the Christians. The officials needed to stop this uprising of the Jews. They knew that just rallying the people for their cause would not be enough, something more powerful was needed. Their solution is what is now known as the
Inquisition.
Another principle reason for the start of the Inquisition was economics and money. When the idea of the Inquisition was becoming more widely known of, Spain was not in a very prosperous time. Spain had used a lot of money and resources during the reconquest of Granada, and the wars in Spain and Italy. The government began to realize that they were low on money, and that they needed to replenish
their financial funds, before their signs of weakness were evident to the public. If that ever happened, the people might take advantage of the weakness and try to overthrow the government. Therefore, the officials and monarchs needed to find a way to acquire money. They were able to get the necessary money using the Inquisition. They killed hundreds of thousands of Jews and took their possessions,
their money, and anything else they could find. They used these things
to replenish the wealth of the government.
The government officials of the time were also a bit low on money. They were very greedy, and wanted to be rich as they once were. They were able to use the Inquisition as a manner of attaining money and riches. They would hire people or go themselves, and ransack the houses of Jews. They would kill the inhabitants of the houses, and take anything they could find, including money, furniture, and
jewelry.
The King and Queen had the same selfish desires as the
officials had. They wanted to get more money for themselves, and they had to find a quick source it. They did the same thing as the
officials did. They hired people to pillage the houses of the Jews, and to take their money and possessions.

Once again.. religion is used as an EXCUSE for evil men to carry out evil actions under the false cover of Piety.
It has NOTHING to do with Christianity and everything to do with Politics, Money and Power.

I agree its an excuse...we are not in disagreement on that. That does not change the fact that christians killed a lot of people.

Bottom line....the pope gave official dispensation, religious reasons WERE involved...it even states so in your quoted article. Jews have often been targetted by christians as a whipping boy. I think that's one of the reasons today's jews are so nervous about the film. It is precisely because of that history.

The church was utterly corrupt for much of its history. That in no way excuses "christianity" for the crimes committed by the church (or instigated by the church) in it's name. I am not arguing motivations (many of them were "secular" in nature), I am arguing culpability for actions taken.

NO BUDDY EXPECTS A SPANISH INQUISITION!


http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/tt2.jpg

For those interested, I lifted this from the New Advent Encyclopedia-

"Tomás de Torquemada

First Grand Inquisitor of Spain, born at Valladolid in 1420; died at Avila, 16 September, 1498. He was a nephew of the celebrated theologian and cardinal, Juan de Torquemada. In his early youth he entered the Dominican monastery at Valladolid, and later was appointed prior of the Monastery of Santa Cruz at Segovia, an office which he held for twenty-two years. The Infanta Isabella chose him as her confessor while at Segovia, and when she succeeded to the throne of Castile in 1474 he became one of her most trusted and influential councillors, but refused all high ecclesiastical preferments, choosing to remain a simple friar.

At that time the purity of the Catholic Faith in Spain was in great danger from the numerous Marranos and Moriscos, who, for material considerations, became sham converts from Judaism and Mohammedanism to Christianity. The Marranos committed serious outrages against Christianity and endeavoured to judaize the whole of Spain. The Inquisition, which the Catholic sovereigns had been empowered to establish by Sixtus IV in 1478, had, despite unjustifiable cruelties, failed of its purpose, chiefly for want of centralisation. In 1483 the pope appointed Torquemada, who had been an assistant inquisitor since 11 February 1482, Grand Inquisitor of Castile, and on 17 October extended his jurisdiction over Aragon.

As papal representative and the highest official of the inquisitorial court, Torquemada directed the entire business of the Inquisition in Spain, was empowered to delegate his inquisitorial faculties to other Inquisitors of his own choosing, who remained accountable to him, and settled the appeals made to the Holy See . He immediately established tribunals at Valladolid, Seville, Jaen, Avila, Cordova, and Villa-real, and, in 1484, at Saragossa for the Kingdom of Aragon. He also instituted a High Council, consisting of five members, whose chief duty was to assist him in the hearing of appeals (see INQUISITION -- The Inquisition in Spain ). He convened a general assembly of Spanish inquisitors at Seville, 29 November, 1484, and presented an outline of twenty-eight articles for their guidance. To these he added several new statutes in 1485, 1488, and 1498 (Reuss, "Sammlungen der Instructionen des spanischen Inquisitionsgerichts", Hanover, 1788) . The Marranos found a powerful means of evading the tribunals in the Jews of Spain, whose riches had made them very influential and over whom the Inquisition had no jurisdiction. On this account Torquemada urged the sovereigns to compel all the Jews either to become Christians or to leave Spain. To frustrate his designs the Jews agreed to pay the Spanish government 30,000 ducats if left unmolested. There is a tradition that when Ferdinand was about to yield to the enticing offer, Torquemada appeared before him, bearing a crucifix aloft, and exclaiming: "Judas Iscariot sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver; Your Highness is about to sell him for 30,000 ducats. Here He is; take Him and sell Him." Leaving the crucifix on the table he left the room. Chiefly through his instrumentality the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492.

Much has been written of the inhuman cruelty of Torquemada. Llorente computes that during Torquemada's office (1483-98) 8800 suffered death by fire and 9,654 were punished in other ways (Histoire de l'Inquisition, IV, 252). These figures are highly exaggerated, as has been conclusively proved by Hefele (Cardinal Ximenes, ch. xviii), Gams (Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, III, II, 68-76), and many others. Even the Jewish historian Graetz contents himself with stating that "under the first Inquisitor Torquemada, in the course of fourteen years (1485-1498) at least 2000 Jews were burnt as impenitent sinners" ("History of the Jews", Philadelphia, 1897, IV, 356). Most historians hold with the Protestant Peschel (Das Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877, pp. 119 sq.) that the number of persons burnt from 1481 to 1504, when Isabella died, was about 2000. Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided not only by comparison with the penal standard of the fifteenth century, but also, and chiefly, by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain. The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo (Chronicon magistrorum generalium Ordinis Prædicatorum, fol. 80-81) calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order"."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I forget all the EZ code stuff for posting quotes.

a little back on topic

i thought the movie to be very dry, unless someone has read the bible, you are going to be completely lost trying to follow the movie or understand any of the symbolism shown.

the movie definetly has lots of gore, and i really liked the actor they had playing jesus, being that i liked him in count of monte cristo and radio

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our -three- weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our -four-...no... -Amongst- our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

The thing I found interesting about the movie is that you had to have some Bible knowledge to follow what was going on. I don't think you'd get the scene about how Jesus met Mary Magdalene if you didn't know a bit about hte Bible.

I also think it's very possible that, if you hadn't heard all the complaining and hype beforehand, you would not come out of the movie thinking that Jews were somehow to blame for Jesus' death.

/laugh Osgiliath & Zehn
I KNEW someone would say that! :lol :

Anyway. OF COURSE the spanish inquisition was about politics. However, that's part of the point. Whenever religion gets mixed with politics, it becomes, well, politics. There's a good reason why the preachers should stay the hell away from the lawbook, and vice versa. Let faith be faith and politics be politics. They should NOT mix with each other.

On the lighter side, Jesus himself recently demanded creative control over the next movie about him!

www.theonion.com/news/ (http://www.theonion.com/news/)

HOLLYWOOD, CA—After watching Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ Monday, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ announced that He will demand creative control over the next film based on His life.


Above: Christ pans Passion after seeing it at a North Hollywood multiplex.
"I never should have given Mel Gibson so much license," said Christ, the Son of God. "I don't like to criticize a member of the flock, but that close-up of the nails being pounded into My wrists—that was just bad."

Our Lord did not limit His criticisms to Gibson's Passion; He expressed frustration with historical inaccuracies in numerous film adaptations of His life.

"There have been a lot of films based on My life, and pretty much all of them have gotten it wrong," Christ said. "Just look at Godspell—what the heck was going on there? It's time I reclaim My image."

Christ said He considered returning to the physical world to make an accurate film depiction of His life for years, but seeing The Passion prompted Him to finally descend from heaven, meet with His agent Ronald Thatcher, and demand that He be attached as a producer on any future projects.

"Ron has a history of telling Me that the filmmakers 'totally understand' the Word Of God, and that the project is going to be 'fabulous,'" Christ said. "But when it comes out, it's all wrong, and Ron claims everything fell apart in post-production. At that point, there's nothing left for Me to do but say, 'Okay, fine. I forgive you all.' Well, next time, I'll be shepherding the project through from casting to final edit to marketing."

Describing one of His biggest complaints, Christ said that no film about His life has ever "made the apostles pop."

"In The Greatest Story Ever Told, the 12 are basically interchangeable," Christ said. "Directors get the piety, but they don't bring out the personalities behind the agape love. Some of those guys were real cut-ups, you know. Simon Peter could make you laugh until you cried tears of blood."

In order to bring these and other truths to light, Christ teamed up with screenwriter Ron Bass, who wrote both Snow Falling On Cedars and My Best Friend's Wedding. The two have been co-writing a high-concept script, temporarily called Untitled Jesus Project.

"We're still hammering out the treatment, but I'm really excited about where it's headed," Christ said. "It really beefs up My relationship with John the Baptist, something all of the other movies missed. They always put in the beheading, but they leave out the quiet moments when John and I would hang out, eat locusts and honey, and talk about the redemption of Man. I think our friendship will really resonate with a lot of viewers."

Christ said He is also working on a heist film based loosely on the loaves-and-the-fishes incident, but that the project is currently stuck in development.


Above: Christ talks with directors on the set of an upcoming cable-TV miniseries about His life.
"I tend to have problems pitching to studio executives," Christ said. "Last week, I appeared in a vision before a D-girl at Sony, and I said, 'Be not afraid, for I am Jesus—I have written a treatment and Matthew McConaughey is interested in the role of Herod.' Apparently, she was a little freaked-out by the vision and she ended up passing on the idea. Ron said that next time I should just schedule a lunch meeting like everyone else."

Returning to film adaptations about His life and Word, Christ said some inaccuracies can be traced back to the source material, the New Testament.

"Remember, at the time the Good Book was written, I was running around saving souls like a madman," Christ said. "I couldn't focus on a writing project, too. I basically gave My team of writers the broad strokes and hoped inspiration would fill in the cracks. Now, I'm not saying the New Testament isn't good—it is. It's great! But by the time I got around to reading the galleys, the monks had already finished the first printing."

The Lord Jesus did have positive things to say about Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ.

"Not only is Marty a fantastic director, but the story isn't the same old, same old," Jesus said. "It's like The Gospel of Mark filtered through an episode of The Twilight Zone. I love it. My one problem is with the casting of Willem Dafoe. He's good, but I think John Turturro would have made a better Me."

In spite of His love for Scorsese, Christ said He has no plans to simply make "the next Last Temptation."

"My movie about My life will be the greatest movie ever shown," Christ said. "It should be the last Word on Me. No more animated versions, no more musicals, and no more movies where the scourging scene is so violent, you could put it in Fangoria. I mean, yes, being crucified is very painful. But I can't see devoting more than, say, three minutes of film to it."

Jesus added: "My version will have it all: drama, laughter, a spiritual message, and a couple of twists that will surprise even the most devout. The best part is that it'll be 100 percent accurate."

Continued Christ: "Even with the top-notch screenplay Ron and I are writing, I'll still need a great director to make the script shine. Unfortunately, Gore Verbinski is already committed to Pirates Of The Caribbean 2. If only he'd see that this movie is truly the career path for the righteous, I'd be able to get a firm commitment from Johnny Depp, too. Let us pray."

I <3 The Onion.. Good shit Ede =)

All the good intentions of Christ notwithstanding, his religion has been used as excuse and cover for any number of atrocites and conquests over the course of centuries, and not just by a handful of people at the top.
Jesus wasnt about religion. In fact he addresses this issue specifically.

Matthew 15:8-9

And really, couldn't you say that about any religion?

We are also not discussing other religions, we are talking about christianity so bringing up how bad things were elsewhere is not germaine to the discussion.

Actually it is one of the best things supporting LL's argument(which I agree with,even though I'm not christian). The fact that things were fucked all over the place, proves that people are going to act evil no matter what religion they are. It is due to human nature, not to Christianity. If judaism, muslim, sun worshiping, or any other religion were the most influential religion in the western world, rather then christianity, horrible things still would have happened. Do you disagree with that?

And although I may look like an ass for saying this, I don't mean to. I have an observation about the good christianity has done:

Look at how the major christian area's of the world ended up, compared to the non-christian ones.

What I am saying is that denying christianity has participated in that nastiness is bullshit. Simple as that.

Yeah, in the same way The Beatles participated in the manson murders.

*edit, better metaphor*

I see, so the fact that leaders of the catholic church assisted if not ordered the torture, murder and expulsion of jews from Spain tells you nothing? Your comparison is ludicrous in the extreme.

My earlier point about nastiness other places in the world not being germaine was because LL denied christians were doing it at all. I pointed out that they had. If a christian and a muslim both murder someone because they don't like their religion/politics/ethnicity, you can't claim the christian is innocent because the muslim murdered someone too.

The crux of the argument between myself and LL is that he is trying to take the position that because the ideals of Jesus proscribe evil acts, christians could not (would not) have done those things. I take the position that it doesn't matter what Jesus taught, many of the people who espouse his beliefs (christians) still have done great evil using the "greater good of the church" as an excuse and their prejudice against non christians has led them to murder in the past.

It does not matter if the church has done great charities to the central argument.I don't disagree with LL that lots of good has been done and is being done by the various christian denominations. Either christians killed and tortured others in their history or they didn't, that is what we are arguing.

The argument is not whether christianity is "good" or "bad". It is whether it can claim evil has never been done on it's behalf in 2000+ years of history.

BTW, although Europe, North America and a few other places have done well, not all christian countries have. Look at central/south American countries as an example. Also, if you go back half way in christianity's history, we were not doing so well compared to islam.

Likewise, Japan is a non christian country by and large and has also done very well. Percentage wise, you could say Shintoism has done far better than christianity.

Still, I understand what you are saying with regards to most christian areas doing better than non christian ones.In a general sense I think that is true also. It just has no real bearing on what our argument is about. After all, the fact that the US is doing very well does not mean it did not kill a lot of indigenous people in the process. The same goes for christianity.

It does not matter if the church has done great charities to the central argument.I don't disagree with LL that lots of good has been done and is being done by the various christian denominations. Either christians killed and tortured others in their history or they didn't, that is what we are arguing.

The argument is not whether christianity is "good" or "bad". It is whether it can claim evil has never been done on it's behalf in 2000+ years of history.

I'm reasonably sure you're the only person arguing this.

Obviously christians have killed and tortured others in history. The relivant part is that even though it was done in christ's name, it doesnt mean that christianity condones what was done.

If I take a shit on your face and say I did it in christ's name, does that make christianity support shitting on people's faces? Obviously not.

Go back and review the thread...LL said someone was full of crap because they said christians had tortured people too. I am ONLY arguing that particular point, not whether christianity is a good or bad concept. You can praise the words and intentions of Jesus all you want and I have no problem with that. But say that christians (as in those who profess to believe in Christ's divinity and attend the churches in his name) have never tortured or killed anybody using their religion as an excuse and I am going to tell you otherwise.

If people are reading more into my arguments than that (or trying to turn my arguments into more than that), they are mistaken.

*edit* I want to add one more thing..

If you take a shit on my face and claim it in Christ's name because your religious leaders have told you that it is permissable and in fact desirable to do so, then yes christianity would be to blame.
.

I have read it, maybe you should.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus' followers have inflicted far worse tortures upon their enemies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a bullshit.. and more importantly.. an intellectually dishonest statement. You know this is total bullshit, yet you state it. Its worse than a simple lie because you are smart enough to know this.
People who torture and kill are not following the teachings of Jesus. You know this. If you want to have a debate then try to stick to honest and valid points, and leave the cheap attempts at intentional hijacking out.

Notice the bold of what LL said. I say again, you're the only one arguing that point.

The bold type states the obvious... of course they are not following the teachings of Jesus. No one here ever argued they were. But very few people actually ever have followed Jesus' teachings in all things. That does not mean they are not "christians" by the standards of their time, or even by our own definitions.

The disagreement seems to boil down to who is a christian and who is not. If you define a christian as someone who completely adheres to Jesus' teachings, then there are damned few in the world today and even fewer in the dark ages who qualify. If you define it as someone who "tries" to adhere as much as possible, then you are doing better numbers wise, but still allow for transgressions. If you define it as someone who simply believes Christ was divine, has been baptised into the church , regularly worships in church and occasionally tries to do as Jesus taught, then you encompass what most people call "christians" of today.

I take the term "follower of Jesus" to mean a christian of any sort, including the sinners. As long as they have been taught what is right and wrong according to the Bible, been baptised as a christian and not renounced God, I see them as a "follower of Jesus". It does not mean they are free from sin or wrongdoing. No one is. In that light, "followers of Jesus" have indeed included the various religious leaders and church functionaries whose orders resulted in murder of people they deemed inferior or in competition with the power of the church. They were all intimately familiar with the Bible, they were all baptised into the church and in most ways they followed doctrine. They just happened to rationalize murder for the benefit of christianity.

Jews were burned, accused witches were burned, Roma were killed, "heretics" were burned all because those in charge of the church would brook no competition for their particular version of christianity. We won't even go into the Crusades.

If you don't think "christians" were in charge of the christian churches doing all these things, then I don't know what to tell you. Except maybe to take a close look at what today's religious leaders are saying to make sure you don't have more "non christians" in charge trying to get you to oppress some other group of people they see as a threat.

So what does this have to do with the message of Christ?

This thread was never about 16th-18th century church until you made it so.

Man is horrible to man. But there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that promotes or encourages this or makes Catholics and Christians more predisposed than any other group of humans.

Nothing I have been arguing has been aimed at the message of Christ. If that is the source of confusion, then we are arguing at cross purposes.

I am arguing about what has been done in perversion of the message of Christ by people who have led the christian churches in centuries past. Somewhere along the line "turn the other cheek" got twisted into "thall shall not suffer a witch to live" by the leadership.

*edit*

Also, the issue goes way further back than 16th century. Druids were burned too in the early centuries of christendom, though that was as much a continuation of Roman policy as anything else.The Crusades happened much earlier as well. Again, I took issue when it seemed to me you were denying history and history includes more than the 20th/21st century or the 1st century.The events that most obviously contradicted what I perceived as your statement that christians never tortured anybody occured in the 16th century, so I used it as an example. I could just as easily have used modern day Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia or the holocaust.

If you are arguing that Christ's message never advocated murder or torture, then we are in complete agreement. But I interpreted the argument to be about the actions of people commonly recognized as christians, not Christ's message.

If you are arguing that Christ's message never advocated murder or torture, then we are in complete agreement. But I interpreted the argument to be about the actions of people commonly recognized as christians, not Christ's message.
The point is they arent Christians unless they are following Christ's message. They are Anti-Christ like. The Pope makes himself and others in his church as mediators between God and man. Jesus said "there is only one mediator between God and man". He was refering to himself. He also said "Do not call any man father." Matthew 9-13. Therefore not only is the Catholic church based on Anti-Christ teachings but they blaspheme openly. Does this mean none of them are saved? No but the leaders are trying to pull the sheep astray.

In conclusion Jesus said you would know his followers by their fruits.

Jesus said "there is only one mediator between God and man". He was refering to himself. He also said "Do not call any man father." Matthew 9-13

Gotta love the hate for the Catholics. Here's Matthew 9:13-15
----------------------------------
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[1] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus Questioned About Fasting

14Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"
15Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
---------------------------------

So who decides who is following Christ's teaching and who is not? For some things like murder there is easy agreement, but what about details in dispute between catholic, protestant and orthodox branches? Different interpretations of the Bible passages result in different ideas of what Christ intended. So which branch is christian and which is not?

My use of the term christian is in the common use. See my definition above.

By your definition, there are very few christians indeed. No soldier, policeman or anyone else required at times to use force by the state would be a christian. No one paying tax support for a military would be a christian. No one physically defending themselves from assault would be a christian. I would hazard a guess that no one posting on this site could be a christian ... we are all too wealthy. How many of us have forsaken wealth to devote ourselves to helping others?

By your definition, there are very few christians indeed. No soldier, policeman or anyone else required at times to use force by the state would be a christian. No one paying tax support for a military would be a christian. No one physically defending themselves from assault would be a christian. I would hazard a guess that no one posting on this site could be a christian ... we are all too wealthy. How many of us have forsaken wealth to devote ourselves to helping others?
Nothing you say here makes you a Christian, it is faith in Christ that makes you a Christian. You will know the faithful by their fruit. Jesus said "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God what is his."

Jesus also said "Many will come in my name saying "I am the Christ" and will decieve many."
Those with faith will show the works of God through them. It is not their works but His. All that you list above is part of the wish to see men bound to the law but Christ fulfilled the law in those who believe.

Jesus told his diciples "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved"
"Who then can be saved?" they asked.
Jesus replied "With man it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.

A very nice canned answer that says nothing of substance. Sounds to me like you are dodging the question. What you consider "faith in Christ" is likely different than someone else's definition. Who decides what is faith in Christ and what is not? Some people would say you are not a christian because you are gay. Do you consider yourself a christian regardless?

If a person breaks faith in one way but not in any others, is he or is he not a christian? Where does the breakpoint lie? One strike and you're out? If not, who are you to say a pope is not a christian? I'm pretty sure the current pope has a very strong faith in Christ, but since in *your* opinion he is more of an anti-christ (being a pope and all) he should not be considered a christian? Puh-leeze! That is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that drove so many of the religious wars in the past, not to mention most current prejudices by mainstream christianity against homosexuality.

Some people would say you are not a christian because you are gay.
I think it's quite obvious that on Earth, Bowler and I are very far apart in political and ethical beliefs. But in Christ we agree, and are brothers.

I just wish he'd stop calling me a moron in the other thread :p

I'm glad to hear that. Unfortunately much of the "moral majority" disagrees. Just look at the furor over the gay bishop in the Episcopalian church to see what I mean.

I don't mean to offend the more religious among you, but I call things as I see them. The whole question of religious persecution strikes a strong chord with me. I have had direct ancestors imprisoned and killed for their religious beliefs (they retained their catholicism in protestant England during and after Elizabeth's reign and refused to convert. They paid a heavy price for it). Eventually the family did convert in later generations but the story was not forgotten.

On a completely different note, can any of you folks more conversant with religious theory answer a question that's been bugging me? Why did Jesus not write anything down himself before he was crucified? Or did he and I just haven't heard about it? I am assuming he was literate ... he pretty much had to have been if he were recognized as a rabbi of any sort. It seems odd that he would not have written anything directly... I was wondering if any of you could recall any discussion on it.

Members of my family declined to attend my wedding when I married an Anglican (Being Irish Catholic)... but yet were strangely quiet when I broke from the church itself years earlier.

/shrug

A very nice canned answer that says nothing of substance. Sounds to me like you are dodging the question. What you consider "faith in Christ" is likely different than someone else's definition. Who decides what is faith in Christ and what is not? Some people would say you are not a christian because you are gay. Do you consider yourself a christian regardless?
My answers were straight out of the Bible. What other substance do you want? A set of rules that everyone is supposed to live by so Christians can have a tattoo on their head? You continue to show no signs that you understand the sacrifice of Christ.

EVERYONE is a sinner, and you were hip to that point. Then you failed to acknowledge that Christ was a single sacrifice for all sins so that those who come to him by Faith are cleansed and no longer a part of sin. You speak against the Catholics works yet are professing their lie. You speak as though works and good deeds will save you.

The things you speak of are the works of man. They do not make or break salvation or Christianity. Only the works of God bear fruit. Only those with Faith will be part of God's work. Only those with Faith will be saved.

Faith is your salvation not the things of your flesh. Christianity is just a label. It has no real connection to actual salvation through Christ.

It's possible I do not understand what you are driving at. I think what you are ignoring is that having "come to Christ", one can still fall from his teaching and commit fresh sins. As long as you repent of your sins before you croak, all is supposedly forgiven. In practical terms, one year someone can be a devout christian in all ways ...the next year he can be tested and succumb to human desires or failings and commit an attrocity. As long as he truly repents of it before he dies and "accepts Christ", all is forgiven. That does not negate the fact the attrocity was committed, or the fact the person was/is a christian.

Yes, "christians" is a label. Duh! Glad we could agree on at least that.

*edit*

BTW, salvation was never part of the discussion as far as I can tell. We were arguing the definition of a label, "christians", and the history of those recognized as being such.

I find your, um, comments regarding the Roman catholics to be an excellent example of what I've been talking about all along.

It's possible I do not understand what you are driving at. I think what you are ignoring is that having "come to Christ", one can still fall from his teaching and commit fresh sins. As long as you repent of your sins before you croak, all is supposedly forgiven.
This is the crux of your lack of understanding. Jesus died once for all. Once you repent of your sinful nature. He cleanses you and you are no longer in sin. It is impossible for someone who has Christ to sin any longer for their faith makes them free.

Once again you focus on the flesh and a legal relationship with God. Why after being free would you crucify Jesus again? Sin is not an action its a condition. If you had to repent over and over Jesus would have died in vein because they did that before with Goats blood but it could never make them truely righteous before God. He died so that you would "no longer have a conciousness of sin" and could have a personal relationship with God apart from sin.

This is the power that Jesus held over death. He could grant those faithful to Him freedom from the fear of death. Thus reconciling them to God in Him, who has make us blameless by faith.

I think the a core message that I have taken from Jesus is this.

The entirety of a pious holy mans work can be rendered invalid in one moment.
And conversly
The Entirety of a criminals life of sin violence and of hate can be changed in one moment.

Each moment is important, what you do right now. Man is going to fail, he is going to sin. He is also going to succeed. Its the very simple and the totally impossible as the same thing.
Its Life.

If it was easy and undeniable, what would be the point? Christianty isnt very good rich and powerful. Its supposed to be denied, scorned, hated, denounced, rejected. The way is supposed to be hard. Faith shouldnt be easy.

Well, I am glad you have identified my point of misunderstanding. I was under the impression this whole argument was in regards to the physical world we live in, silly me.

Your explanation makes plain why people who believe themselves to be good christians can do such horrible things. I can see where all sorts of travesties could be rationalized if the person believes they have been freed from any consequences for their actions by Jesus' past sacrifice. It's no wonder such evil has been done. After all, it's "impossible to sin" once you believe yourself to have accepted Jesus by what you are telling me. Kill your neighbor and steal his land? Hey! It's OK because Jesus took your sin unto himself! You can do it again tomorrow because you love Jesus! Now you may say "but no one who has accepted Jesus would ever want to do those things". Sorry, I have less faith in people than that. People are often weak and have a large capacity for self delusion.

Excuse me if I decline to subscribe to that belief. In my view a person's actions do have consequence, whether they have "accepted Jesus" or not. I prefer the notion God (if he exists) gave you free will, not a spiritual carte blanche as long as you believe in Jesus. I believe your actions in life should have meaning and they should have consequence. Your dogma obviously says otherwise as long as you love Jesus and that is fine. I just don't share it and never will.

I was under the impression this whole argument was in regards to the physical world we live in, silly me.
You had no idea a thread about The Passion of Christ was about spirtuality? Wow.. Have you suffered some sort of traumatic brain injury?

Your explanation makes plain why people who believe themselves to be good christians can do such horrible things. I can see where all sorts of travesties could be rationalized if the person believes they have been freed from any consequences for their actions by Jesus' past sacrifice. It's no wonder such evil has been done. After all, it's "impossible to sin" once you believe yourself to have accepted Jesus by what you are telling me. Kill your neighbor and steal his land? Hey! It's OK because Jesus took your sin unto himself! You can do it again tomorrow because you love Jesus! Now you may say "but no one who has accepted Jesus would ever want to do those things". Sorry, I have less faith in people than that. People are often weak and have a large capacity for self delusion.
Backtrack much? This brand new point of yours totally contradicts your old one that people were following church edict.
And this one makes even less sense.
You forget one thing. Honesty. For you to follow Christ, you need to totally be honest in giving yourself over. Its total and its unequivicable.
Nobody believes they are free from consequences. Conversy you can live a life were never violate and "rule" and still never have followed Christ.
this is the important thing.. I want you to read this point.
IT IS YOUR ACTIONS THAT COUNT.
The things in the Bible that resound the most are not just what jesus said, but when he followed through on what he said with his actions.
He didnt just say "Love your Enemy"
He was brutalized, tortured tormented and put though inhuman agony, and still, when it was all over, when he had nothing to gain and the deed was done, he prayed to God for mercy for those who put him through that.

You keep flailing around helplessly trying to twist points and attack from a position of dishonesty. Ill keep hammering home what the truth is. Be a man Gulor, attack from an honest viewpoint if your going to attack. Stop trying to be cute and clever and come with a false meaningless point. You are just trying to tread water and hope I give you the ammunition you lack.

actually this thread was about a movie, and then got derailed dramatically

i sitll think the movie was ass

Excuse me if I decline to subscribe to that belief. In my view a person's actions do have consequence, whether they have "accepted Jesus" or not. I prefer the notion God (if he exists) gave you free will, not a spiritual carte blanche as long as you believe in Jesus. I believe your actions in life should have meaning and they should have consequence. Your dogma obviously says otherwise as long as you love Jesus and that is fine. I just don't share it and never will.
Jesus spoke in parables because he said it was "not for them to understand". You still dont understand because you cannot grasp the concept of grace. Your still looking to find what can be done without "getting in trouble". God will not be mocked.

Jesus said "I am the true vine, and my Father the vine dresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit he prunes that it may bear more fruit.
You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

I wish I could claim it as my own insight but the best comment regarding "The Passion of the Christ" that I have heard was a letter published in the latest Newsweek:

"Hollywood takes no responsibility for the moral filth it produces, so why does it believe now that this particular movie will affect society and cause anti-Semitism? Such hypocrisy is mindboggling...

I am equally astounded that some of Hollywood is charging the movie with being too violent and too graphic. Has anyone paid any attention to the graphic violence that is produced today and hailed as art? The liberal media and Hollywood should admit their hatred for Jesus and his church and be done with the charade."

Why did Jesus not write anything down himself before he was crucified? Or did he and I just haven't heard about it? I am assuming he was literate ... he pretty much had to have been if he were recognized as a rabbi of any sort. It seems odd that he would not have written anything directly... I was wondering if any of you could recall any discussion on it.

I'm no expert, but I do remember reading somewhere that jesus did write some things down(the Q document or something?), but it was lost. There also may have been as many as 40-60 gospels, but the church chose 4 and repressed the rest. If any were found now, especially one jesus himself wrote, it would be like an atom bomb in the christian community.

This is just what someone who claimed to be a religion major told me, so it could be wrong.

I am equally astounded that some of Hollywood is charging the movie with being too violent and too graphic. Has anyone paid any attention to the graphic violence that is produced today and hailed as art?

I disagree.
If a movie is "Too violent" or not isn't about the level of violence itself, but about how realistic the violence is and how much a person the victim is.

The violence in "Passion" is against the main character, a character who is rather deep. The violence in "Kill Bill" on the other hand is against cartoonish characters. That's why the splatter in Kill Bill isn't as serious as the tortue in Passion.

so if you want to please hollywood make a violent movie where a shallow character exacts violence on other people and the main character is relatively unscathed.

Just don't make the "mistake" of giving a character depth and showing his suffering. Color me in the minority but to me that's what makes a good movie. And it's also why hollywood doesn't understand the success of this film.

If you want to please Hollywood, use shallow characters only.
With or without violence. :b

As for what I like to watch, my opinion is that shallow movies and deep movies are very hard to compare. Shallow movies are enetertainment. No more, no less. Dep movies give a lot more, but also take a lot more. As for the painful ones, I don't want children to see them. Ever. Shallow sex and violence is easy to shrug of, but deep suffering of characters you can identify with is the kind of stuff nightmares are made of. Definitly not for children. And for myself, I only want to see them if it gives some kind of inspiration or insight that makes the pain worth it.

Saving Private Ryan > Passion of the Christ as far as reality, pain and suffering, and was backed by people who actually were alive during it.

Passion of the Christ was a good movie to see. I really like it and hope they make more of them. I was shocked on how they portrayed Ponchus Pilot as a compassionate man but with no balls in the end...and from what people saying who studied this was he was actually a brutal man that had condemed 1000's of people with out even thinking about it.

LL

My statement about Bowler bring "spirituality" into the argument is pretty clear...I was arguing with you about physical events...i.e. torture and murder... and who did what to whom. I was not arguing anything about who would be saved and who would not. Your insults at me are unwarranted. You should do the christian thing and apologize :)

Any perception of "flip flopping" is entirely you're own. No where do I change my position that christians tortured and killed using religion as an excuse. Please point out where I changed my assertion that they did do those things. What? You can't? Who's trying to divert the discussion away from a point he can't legitimately defend now?

Instead of answering my simple questions about his definition of a christian, Bowler began quoting scripture that's meaning is open to interpretation. He certainly did not answer in clear concise fashion. He then tried to swerve the discussion to how a christian cannot be in a state of sin if he has embraced Christ. My statement about self delusion is to show the point that perhaps these people had deluded themselves into thinking they were in such a state and proceeded to kill and torture precisely because they thought they were free from consequence.It would explain why christians have killed people. Savvy?

Now just where am I being inconsistent? I see no twisting or flip flopping except by folks avoiding answering my direct questions. My understanding of the finer points of christian dogma has no relevance except to try and use the excuse "they weren't christians" with regards to the excesses of ALL the churches in the past. I don't buy into that argument because it leads to the conclusion that there are almost no christians. Certainly no one on this board would qualify as one IMO.

To everyone on this thread, I do apologize for my contribution to the hijacking of this thread.

Enough of that....

P.S. Thanks for the civil reply regarding writings by Jesus. Does anyone know what the subject matter was supposed to have been?

P.S.S. I'm going to try and catch the movie tonight. I'll let you know what I think after I've seen it.

Instead of answering my simple questions about his definition of a christian, Bowler began quoting scripture that's meaning is open to interpretation. He certainly did not answer in clear concise fashion. He then tried to swerve the discussion to how a christian cannot be in a state of sin if he has embraced Christ. My statement about self delusion is to show the point that perhaps these people had deluded themselves into thinking they were in such a state and proceeded to kill and torture precisely because they thought they were free from consequence.It would explain why christians have killed people. Savvy?
Contrary to what you have said my point was there are many who will claim to be Christians but that doesnt make them so. Your insisting that they HAD to be Christians because they said so.

You want a rule to follow. Its between them and God. Your insistance that I have avoided the issue is silly. Ive taken it head on, you just dont like the answer. The definition of a Christian is someone with faith in Christ who bears his fruit. How much more clear do you want me to be?

To everyone on this thread, I do apologize for my contribution to the hijacking of this thread.
This thread was hijacked like on page 2 lol.

Bowler-

That is why I tried to pin you to a definition of who/what is a christian in plain terms...because we DO disagree on that.

You say a christian is someone who has fully embraced Jesus as his savior in all ways and by definition could not possibly commit evil. Anyone doing evil can't possibly be a christian. I say by that definition I have never met a christian since everyone I have ever met has done some degree of evil, even after they claim to have embraced Christ. I prefer a more flexible definition that takes into account human imperfection. I think most people, when you ask what religion they follow, will use my definition of christian when they answer.

As far as the hijacking, I will endeavor to shut up from here on out unless I have something to say about the movie itself. I've made my position plain on the other matters...and its obvious we will need to agree to disagree on those.

Hearing about the movie, I am almost dreading the vividness of the less pleasant parts. I think that is central to the message Gibson is trying to convey though, so I will buck up and sit through it.

The problem is you are talking about the flesh while I am talking about the spirit.

Anyway, the movie was a little over the top in my opinion. It could have focused on more of the issues that actually made the Jewish leaders do those things. Instead it just dealt with the violent end result. The depiction of Satan, ironically, was pretty darn cool.

Saving Private Ryan > Passion of the Christ as far as reality, pain and suffering, and was backed by people who actually were alive during it.

Yeah those silly apostles are never around when you need em.

On a related note, many people were pissed at Spielberg because SPR made it look like the Brits had no role at D-Day.
I don't think we had outcries proclaiming that Spielberg was "anti-british."

But he was the first to cry Anti-Semetism at Mel Gibson