How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Mare Tranquillity]

A declaration of the rights of fungi to happily exist and torment humans?

I gather then, that you feel you have the right to decide which of God's creations should have the right to keep the life that God gave it?

Do you not grant the right to humans to happily exist and torment fungi? Not that you have a whole Bible but here's a scripture that bears on this discussion:
Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

Yes, yes, I know, the Pope wrote an encyclical proving that this scripture was written by the Devil and blah, blah, blah... It's really handy to have your own guy to rewrite the god's words to suit you. That's why the Bible is a rubber yardstick.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Certainly.
There is no dimension of love in the legalistic pharisaic view of the torah.
The sadducees' view of political expediency and the zealots' view of revolt completely missed the point.

More twaddle. Jesus message of love can stand on its own with no reference to ancient goatherders. The fact that there is no dimension of love in the legalistic pharisaic view is totally irrelevant to what most people experience in their day to day lives. If you need pharisaic views to have a dimension of love in your life, then I wish you well, but very few people are so crippled.

The essenes' view of spirituality, though the nearest, also fails because they reject the world wherein salvation was supposed to proceed in.

Slam a little bit of your vast fund of logic onto that last sentence and see if you can make it say something. Or are you arguing the "many worlds" theory?

It shows that a profound change of heart is the prerequisite for profound change (an action necessarily emanating from the mind)

Now who's quoting Yoda?

-- something that was thought of to be impossible previously.

You thought this was impossible, why? I never thought so. Maybe you should not judge others by yourself.

Tell me, is it easier to make bread and fish appear to multiply (something that an illusionist could do with his eyes closed) or to make hundreds of people change their hearts and share their food reserves to strangers in the middle of nowhere????

I have shared food with strangers in the middle of nowhere, the people at Woodstock shared not only food, but drugs and sex with strangers. Everytime there is a disaster people share with strangers. If you don't know this and have to have the Church tell you, then you need to get out more.

And while you're at it, you might want to say exactly which of the two is a miracle.

I don't know that either was a miracle.

What are you talking about?????
Prior to christianity, the one thing that most people fear, something that constitutes radical and irreversible evil, is death. People therefore fear it.

What christianity teaches is that death ceases to be the radical and irreversible evil -- jesus being our 'guarantor' to this truth by his death and resurrection. And because death itself has become powerless against us, christianity proclaims to all who would care to listen -- BE NOT AFRAID..

It's a total hoax, there have been many saviors who died for humanity's sins down through the ages, it's a common religious concept. Shoot nearly two thirds of humanity believes in reincarnation--which actually makes a lot more logical sense than most things. Death has always been powerless against us, it's only religions who have taught us to be afraid, most indigenous peoples saw death as just another part of life. It's the Day of Judgment and the threats of Hell and Eternal Damnation that terrify people. Your religion tries to frighten people into the fold with horror stories about what their Heavenly Father is going to do to them. It's crap. People do not need to fear God. No one will be lost, there is no Hell, no damnation, no eternal punishment--it's blasphemy to say that God would do those things.

That is precisely why I'm not a gnostic, if you haven't noticed this little fact by now. No need for esoteric knowledge ritually bestowed in some dark cave.
One only need to look at the workings of nature and the mind to see the creator's self-revelation. To this end, the thoughts of scientists as well as philosophers serves me well.

Well, see there, two things we agree on--we're practically soul-mates, Nums.

The church I attended teached it ad nauseum. So did the catholic school I went to.
What goat-herder church did you attend, hmmm?
Of course they do, one way or another. Unfortunately for you, the majority of christians live their faith quietly. In this regard, I am envious of them.

No one is requiring you to post here, you could stop and just live your faith quietly if you wished. Actually, I've attended most goatherder churches, including the Catholic one.

I never mentioned 'dimension of love' even once????? Even in the homosexuality thread, the abortion thread, and just about any thread I cared to post in?????

Post a quote from anyone of your diatribes wherein you talk about Jesus stating the two most important commandments, please. Just discussing the "dimension" of love is hardly adequate since that is little more than a catch phrase used widely and with little agreement as to meaning.

That's because you never read humanae vitae after all the times I told you to. It's right there. Now, whose fault is that, eh?

I did actually, but it struck me as being a lot like the works of Thomas Hobbes, a few gems in a mountain of pompous wind-baggery and religious poohbah.

You would know this is a lie if only you would spend an hour every week to attend church -- preferably catholic since I can't speak for other churches.

If someone says something that they think is true, something that is true in their experience, is that a lie because you don't agree with it? You are calling me a liar without having walked in my shoes or lived my life--didn't Jesus tell you not to judge others?

In all my hours spent in Christian churches, in all my discussions with my two Bible-beater brothers, in all the posts I have read by self-identified Christians on discussion sites I have NEVER seen or heard anyone quote or post the two most important commandments in the Bible without my mentioning it first. I see the Ten Commandments all the time, I see the scriptures about gay people being abominations, but Jesus' commandments get short shrift.

To point out the fact that you are ignorant about the things you pretend to criticize.

I am not pretending to criticize, I AM criticizing.

Certainly, if you just know them.
But what if you LOVE them? Wouldn't you go out of your way to tell this person that he is forgiven? How far would you go? Multiply that to infinity and you would have scratched the basic idea of what I'm talking about here.

No matter how much I loved, I would not crucify an innocent person.

Oh, and it was jesus' will to be crucified, him being the third person of god. And it was entirely his will that he did not climb down the cross, despite the taunt.

Total nonsense, there was no reason to have anyone crucified, your idea that we needed to see someone die so we could feel that are sins were paid for is unutterably stupid (in my opinion). I certainly don't feel better about my mistakes because some poor bastard was nailed up to die on a lonely tower.

Of course it makes me feel better to know that, no matter how horrible I have been, I'm still within the bounds of grace and forgiveness. Now, it is simply a matter of admitting my failings -- an immensely easier exercise under the circumstances.

The gulf between us is bigger than I imagined, Nums, if you actually feel better because of what is alledged to have happened to Jesus. I never in my worst nightmare doubted that my Creator was there for me, nobody has to be nailed up for us to have God's forgiveness--it's always there, always has been, blood payments are a human concept and totally unnecessary for God. God is better than we CAN imagine. If it takes bloody murder to make you think that God still loves and accepts you, then your fear must be terrible--where is your faith in the ultimate goodness of God?

And what stupid logic led you to believe that, eh?
How can god be responsible for the actions of individuals imbued with FREE WILL?
Does god's foreknowledge of your action make him responsible?

Many of the things are attributed to God in the Bible, for instance He "stirred up" the Medes to commit genocide. It wasn't just the predictions, it was the permission for slavery and the selling of children, the taking of women as spoils of war.

Therefore, the bible isn't blasphemous. Nope.
An education on basic facts and logic is enough.

The Bible has blasphemy in it where it says that God did those bad things. You say that men did the bad things, not God, but Dr. Who admits that God did the bad things to make good things happen. You two need to get your story straight.

That is why they're called MYSTERIES. You are supposed to be contemplating on these mysteries while praying forumla prayer (in catholicism, that's the mind-numbing rosary -- every school day for 11 years in my case), either joyful, sorrowful or glorious mysteries, depending on the day.

The only mystery is why Christians would even think that God could be as evil as He is pictured in the Bible.

 

[numinus]

I gather then, that you feel you have the right to decide which of God's creations should have the right to keep the life that God gave it?

That is correct.

Its called stewardship, by the way. And this responsibility rests on the human specie simply because only the human specie can exercise rational thought.

Or if you wish to be biblical about it, god gave man dominion over the created world.

Do you not grant the right to humans to happily exist and torment fungi? Not that you have a whole Bible but here's a scripture that bears on this discussion:
Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

Even disease causing micro-organisms, eh?

Do you have any control as to how stupid your post gets?

Yes, yes, I know, the Pope wrote an encyclical proving that this scripture was written by the Devil and blah, blah, blah... It's really handy to have your own guy to rewrite the god's words to suit you. That's why the Bible is a rubber yardstick.

Yep.

Higher studies in philosophy is required for the clergy. Did you think the catholic clergy are uneducated morons they picked at some street corner? You must have mistaken catholics with some christian fundie sect.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is correct. Its called stewardship, by the way. And this responsibility rests on the human specie simply because only the human specie can exercise rational thought.

Or if you wish to be biblical about it, god gave man dominion over the created world.

Actually, humans wrote the book that gave them dominion, and they have abused that dominion since day one. Our rational thought has not kept us from polluting the air, land, and water, it hasn't kept us from waging insane wars that pollute and destroy, it hasn't kept us from making thousands of chemicals and releasing them into the ecosystems that supply us with food, air, and clean water. If I was you I wouldn't try to make too much of our supposedly "rational" thought. No dumb animals have polluted the water tables or set off atomic bombs, no animal invented napalm or nerve gas, no animals killed thousands in the Inquistition or burned a million women at the stake because of myth and superstitious fear fanned by misogynistic religious idiots.

Even disease causing micro-organisms, eh? Do you have any control as to how stupid your post gets?

Poor ol' Nums, you gotta go from the sublime to the ridiculous to try to make a point. The Great Auk wasn't a microorganism that caused human disease, neither were the Passenger Pigeons, or the Dodo birds, or any one of thousands of species driven into extinction by the dominion of man.

It's good that you brought this up though because you have posted that you believe that women should not have control over things inside their bodies, but here you are demanding the right to kill things inside YOUR body. I think you have the right to defend yourself against disease or attack by cougars, it's the wholesale slaughter of billions of animals for food, fun, profit, and sport to which I object. It's the rainforest destruction, the over-fishing of the oceans, the endless killing to feed mankind's sempiternal greed.

Yep. Higher studies in philosophy is required for the clergy. Did you think the catholic clergy are uneducated morons they picked at some street corner? You must have mistaken catholics with some christian fundie sect.

They can't be all that smart, they're still advocating against decent birth control, they're still bashing gays despite all the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a normal variation in humans and most animals. What was it the doughhead said? Oh yeah, condoms cause AIDS. Yep, a real genius there.

It's funny, Nums, do you ever notice that in almost every post you call me stupid, and yet I keep countering your arguments rationally and mostly politely despite the fact that you belong to a Church that has slaughtered millions of people in the name of Jesus in the last 2000 years. You belong to that church and you support it, but I'm stupid? Maybe you should let your wife post in your place.

 

[numinus]

More twaddle. Jesus message of love can stand on its own with no reference to ancient goatherders. The fact that there is no dimension of love in the legalistic pharisaic view is totally irrelevant to what most people experience in their day to day lives. If you need pharisaic views to have a dimension of love in your life, then I wish you well, but very few people are so crippled.

Nonsense.

All your opinions regarding christianity is so defective precisely because you conjure them without their context.

Slam a little bit of your vast fund of logic onto that last sentence and see if you can make it say something. Or are you arguing the "many worlds" theory?

Like this one right here -- utterly devoid of context -- hence the conclusion is wrong.

If jesus' teachings were entirely spiritual, then there wouldn't be any need for his ministry. He would have removed himself from the world like the essenes.

But he did not, did he? In fact, he sought to change the world, not forsake it.

Now who's quoting Yoda?

You are -- in the other thread.

Is there something wrong with what I said -- that the will/mind is what gives actions the principle of their volition?

You thought this was impossible, why? I never thought so. Maybe you should not judge others by yourself.

Again, an utter lack of context.

The messiahnic phenomenon during that time was due to the jew's inability for renewal -- perhaps ever since the jewish monarchy of david.

What I think is irrelevant to this fact.

I have shared food with strangers in the middle of nowhere, the people at Woodstock shared not only food, but drugs and sex with strangers. Everytime there is a disaster people share with strangers. If you don't know this and have to have the Church tell you, then you need to get out more.

Again, devoid of context.

That particular miracle happened prior to the sermon on the mount, which took place in the region perhaps a number of days walk west of the sea of galilee. So, sharing their food (which would have been packed for this particular trip) with strangers would have been at the expense of their own well-being, no?

How in heaven's name does that compare to woodstock, hmmm?

I don't know that either was a miracle.

Of course you don't know.

It's a total hoax, there have been many saviors who died for humanity's sins down through the ages, it's a common religious concept. Shoot nearly two thirds of humanity believes in reincarnation--which actually makes a lot more logical sense than most things.

But buddha didn't preach in palestine at that time, did he?

Jesus did.

Death has always been powerless against us, it's only religions who have taught us to be afraid,

Why didn't you simply kill yourself when you found out your brain's gender didn't fit your body's? Isn't death powerless against you? Your god could simply give you a body that matches your brain's gender via reincarnation, no?

most indigenous peoples saw death as just another part of life.

Of course it is part of life. That doesn't mean they're not afraid to die, does it?

It's the Day of Judgment and the threats of Hell and Eternal Damnation that terrify people.

And who's fault is that, hmmm?

Your religion tries to frighten people into the fold with horror stories about what their Heavenly Father is going to do to them. It's crap.

But christianity doesn't frighten people. How exactly is a 'good news' frightening?

People do not need to fear God. No one will be lost, there is no Hell, no damnation, no eternal punishment--it's blasphemy to say that God would do those things.

Of course. He is a god of love, after all.

And you heap blasphemy at the religion who brought you this idea after the fact.

Well, see there, two things we agree on--we're practically soul-mates, Nums.

Don't flatter yourself.

The catholic clergy are trained philosophers -- not some fundamentalist moron from some street corner. If you had any aptitude for the subject, your arguments wouldn't be utter nonsense.

No one is requiring you to post here, you could stop and just live your faith quietly if you wished. Actually, I've attended most goatherder churches, including the Catholic one.

Which proves my point, exactly.

Post a quote from anyone of your diatribes wherein you talk about Jesus stating the two most important commandments, please. Just discussing the "dimension" of love is hardly adequate since that is little more than a catch phrase used widely and with little agreement as to meaning.

Eh?

I have explained kantian ethics, have I not? I have said that christian ethics is a positive reformulation of it, have I not?

Is it still my fault that you don't understand?

I did actually, but it struck me as being a lot like the works of Thomas Hobbes, a few gems in a mountain of pompous wind-baggery and religious poohbah.

And what particular work of thomas hobbes did you have in mind, hmmm?

And it is a lot like his work because....?

And what statements in humanae vitae, exactly, do you think is wind-baggery, hmmm?

It really won't do you any good to bluff your way out.

 

[Dr.Who]

Look at history, Jesus was just one man, Hitler was just one man, Gandhi was just one man. There was a time when giving women equal rights was unthinkable--the Christian church was against it. Integration? Interracial marriage? Inter-faith marriage? Gay priests? Gay marriage? An end to burning witches at the stake? All of these things were so far removed from what the majority thought that the voices crying in the wilderness were ignored.

I guess I didn't realize I was in the company of greatness.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nums,
I notice the quality of your posts is sagging down badly, you're reduced to one sentence or even one word responses--and many of them are simply attacks on me and have no discussion value at all. Maybe this would be a good time for you to become on of those Christians quietly practicing their religion in the privacy of their own lives.

Nonsense. All your opinions regarding christianity is so defective precisely because you conjure them without their context.

Like this one right here -- utterly devoid of context -- hence the conclusion is wrong.

If jesus' teachings were entirely spiritual, then there wouldn't be any need for his ministry. He would have removed himself from the world like the essenes.

But he did not, did he? In fact, he sought to change the world, not forsake it.

You are running and hiding, there is nothing in Jesus' LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF that requires goatherder context or the windbaggery of philosphers or the Church. That was the real beauty of Jesus' message, it was simple, to the point, and it didn't require all the nonsense that goes along with churches and organized religions. Of course the churche's aim was to make it esoteric because that's how they control the people and bend the laws to suit their own ends. Jesus' message is so simple and direct that anyone can see the sin in the Pope living like a king when millions of God's children are living in dire poverty. Anyone can see that sheltering pedophiles and allowing them to continue preying on children is wrong.

You are -- in the other thread.
Is there something wrong with what I said -- that the will/mind is what gives actions the principle of their volition?

Yeah, right, you have nothing to say so you claim I said something somewhere else (but you don't quote it) and then you make a self-evident statement as if it was a diamond from the lips of the Pope. You see what I mean about the quality of your posts?

Again, an utter lack of context.
The messiahnic phenomenon during that time was due to the jew's inability for renewal -- perhaps ever since the jewish monarchy of david.
What I think is irrelevant to this fact.
Again, devoid of context.

That particular miracle happened prior to the sermon on the mount, which took place in the region perhaps a number of days walk west of the sea of galilee. So, sharing their food (which would have been packed for this particular trip) with strangers would have been at the expense of their own well-being, no?

NO, people often help each other even without sermons, where do you live that people don't help each other?

How in heaven's name does that compare to woodstock, hmmm?

People met and shared with strangers just like at the Mount of Olives, no sermon, just good people sharing what they had with others. And it went on for 3 days. No sermon, no religious twaddle, just good people sharing with each other and enjoying the music.

Of course you don't know.
But buddha didn't preach in palestine at that time, did he?

Your answer implies that I am less than you because I don't know (and I admit it) but that you DO know (which you don't). At least I am honest. As far as Buddha was concerned, he wasn't crucified for people's sins either, so your comment about him is outside the context of our discussion.

Jesus did.

Boy, I'm glad you told me that, what a revelation! This is going to make all the religious newspapers, I bet the Pope will make you a Saint for this. See what I mean about your post quality?

Why didn't you simply kill yourself when you found out your brain's gender didn't fit your body's? Isn't death powerless against you? Your god could simply give you a body that matches your brain's gender via reincarnation, no?

We are all immortal beings and thus death is but a transition in our existence. We come here to learn and we need to deal with the cards we are dealt. It was far better for me to transition from male to female in my presentation and continue my life despite the difficulty and the pain because of the learning experiences I've had. You would write better posts if you weren't so angry.

Of course it is part of life. That doesn't mean they're not afraid to die, does it?

We would need to qualify the "afraid to die" phrase in order to make a meaningful exchange of this. They were not afraid of an afterlife of punishment for eternity, they didn't fear the JUDGMENT of some monstrously cruel deity who would torture them for all of eternity for the sins they made in an eyeblink of time.

And who's fault is that, hmmm?

I think the fault can be laid at the door of the liars who blaspheme by telling people about the horrors that your monstrous deity will visit upon them if they don't do what the CHURCH tells them to do. Can you see the hypocrisy in this, taking the simple and easily understood words of Jesus LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF, TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, RETURN GOOD FOR EVIL... and twisting that into an insanely violent religion that tells people to fear their Creator because He will punish them for all of eternity. Total crap, Nums, and I'm sorry you bought into it.

But christianity doesn't frighten people. How exactly is a 'good news' frightening?

Hellfire and brimstone and eternal punishment aren't frightening?

Of course. He is a god of love, after all.

Oh yeah, just read the Old Testament and you can see how He is portrayed. And that's exactly why I don't buy the blaspemy in the Bible or from the Pope or Fred Phelps, God is better than we CAN imagine, and I can imagine a God who doesn't murder His own children.

And you heap blasphemy at the religion who brought you this idea after the fact.

One does not "heap blashemy at..." something, blasphemy is heaped upon. The information was here and readily available long before the Christian religion came upon the scene. My guess is that some research on the history of religion before Christianity might be very enlightening for you.

Don't flatter yourself. The catholic clergy are trained philosophers -- not some fundamentalist moron from some street corner. If you had any aptitude for the subject, your arguments wouldn't be utter nonsense.

The "condoms cause AIDS" comment and the pedophile philosophers to the contrary.

Which proves my point, exactly.
Eh? I have explained kantian ethics, have I not? I have said that christian ethics is a positive reformulation of it, have I not? Is it still my fault that you don't understand?

Which proves my point exactly. Jesus' message didn't need to be filtered through Kantian ethics any more than it needed to be filtered through Daniel Boone's underwear. All the fancy philosphizing and Popery windbagging only serve to cloud the truth and muddy the waters and obscure the message.

And what particular work of thomas hobbes did you have in mind, hmmm? And it is a lot like his work because....? And what statements in humanae vitae, exactly, do you think is wind-baggery, hmmm?
It really won't do you any good to bluff your way out.

Hobbes, Kant, the Popes, James Cargill, and Moshe Dyan cannot make Jesus' message any more plain, succinct, to the point, terse, or clear. Why you have to make it so complex seems to be a symptom of you having a lot of learned lumber in your head that you wish to use even when it's not necessary.

Is there anyone who needs LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF, TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, RETURN GOOD FOR EVIL, and FORGIVE OTHERS AS YOU WISH TO BE FORGIVEN to be explained? You seem to know a bit about math, Nums, so you know that mathematical theorems tend to have a beautiful simplicity when they represent a universal truth. Jesus' message is beautiful in its simplicity, a simplicity that makes it available to anyone without any context whatever. No threats, no punishments, just a simple prescription for how to live one's life.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I guess I didn't realize I was in the company of greatness.

You might consider the possibility that you are wrong about a lot of things. Movements always start somewhere, that doesn't necessarily mean the person starting them is "great" unless you believe that Hitler was great.

 

[numinus]

If someone says something that they think is true, something that is true in their experience, is that a lie because you don't agree with it? You are calling me a liar without having walked in my shoes or lived my life--didn't Jesus tell you not to judge others?

Again, with your relative nonsense.

Something is true if it follows from FACTS AND LOGIC. Truth does not suffer your absurd opinions, however vigorously argue for nonsense.

In all my hours spent in Christian churches, in all my discussions with my two Bible-beater brothers, in all the posts I have read by self-identified Christians on discussion sites I have NEVER seen or heard anyone quote or post the two most important commandments in the Bible without my mentioning it first. I see the Ten Commandments all the time, I see the scriptures about gay people being abominations, but Jesus' commandments get short shrift.

Then you should get out more. Duh?

I am not pretending to criticize, I AM criticizing.

LOL.

A criticism implies a RATIONAL ARGUMENT to the contrary. Need I say more?

No matter how much I loved, I would not crucify an innocent person.

What part of this analogy can't you follow, hmmm?

God loves mankind so much, he subjects HIMSELF to mankind's judgement at the cross.

Does it follow that if YOU love someone, you have to crucify SOMEONE ELSE to demonstrate that love?

Duh?

Total nonsense, there was no reason to have anyone crucified,

What unbelieveable nonsense!

If jesus wanted to demonstrate the resurrection (hence his mastery over what people thought of as radical evil) shouldn't he die first????

Can you think of a way of demonstrating resurrection without dying???

Come on. Shift that factory of nonsense between your ears to overdrive and let's see what you come up with.

your idea that we needed to see someone die so we could feel that are sins were paid for is unutterably stupid (in my opinion).

And whose fault is it that people require empirical proof of something as self-evident as divine love, hmmmm?

I certainly don't feel better about my mistakes because some poor bastard was nailed up to die on a lonely tower.

I don't feel better about the crucifixion. I feel better about the resurrection.

Obviously, the resurrection becomes irrelevant without the crucifixion.

The gulf between us is bigger than I imagined, Nums, if you actually feel better because of what is alledged to have happened to Jesus.

Of course it is bigger than you imagined. My ideas are based on facts and logic and your ideas -- well -- are just that --- imagined.

I never in my worst nightmare doubted that my Creator was there for me,

And he still is.

nobody has to be nailed up for us to have God's forgiveness--it's always there,

Of course.

It is always easy to make statements after the fact.

always has been, blood payments are a human concept and totally unnecessary for God. God is better than we CAN imagine. If it takes bloody murder to make you think that God still loves and accepts you, then your fear must be terrible--where is your faith in the ultimate goodness of God?

Let me make this as simple as sunday school.

The idea is IF god can bridge the infinite gap betwen divinity and human mortality -- hence demonstrating that he understands the people he purports to love.

Obviously, an absolutely invincible and majestic god wouldn't do, would it? Otherwise, you'd go about whining all day about how god doesn't understand you.

Think about it.

Many of the things are attributed to God in the Bible, for instance He "stirred up" the Medes to commit genocide. It wasn't just the predictions, it was the permission for slavery and the selling of children, the taking of women as spoils of war.

Sigh.

For the last time, what part of free will don't you understand?????

The Bible has blasphemy in it where it says that God did those bad things. You say that men did the bad things, not God, but Dr. Who admits that God did the bad things to make good things happen. You two need to get your story straight.

Good god! Explaining things to you is worse than constipation!

God creates good things from what man screws up.

Is there anything -- anything at all -- particularly hard to comprehend in that????

The only mystery is why Christians would even think that God could be as evil as He is pictured in the Bible.

That's easy.

Christians don't think that.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Actually, humans wrote the book that gave them dominion, and they have abused that dominion since day one. Our rational thought has not kept us from polluting the air, land, and water, it hasn't kept us from waging insane wars that pollute and destroy, it hasn't kept us from making thousands of chemicals and releasing them into the ecosystems that supply us with food, air, and clean water. If I was you I wouldn't try to make too much of our supposedly "rational" thought. No dumb animals have polluted the water tables or set off atomic bombs, no animal invented napalm or nerve gas, no animals killed thousands in the Inquistition or burned a million women at the stake because of myth and superstitious fear fanned by misogynistic religious idiots.

Precisely!

Hence the need for salvation. Man's dominion is not only an accomplished fact, it is self-evident as well.

I imagined that would have been obvious by now.

Poor ol' Nums, you gotta go from the sublime to the ridiculous to try to make a point. The Great Auk wasn't a microorganism that caused human disease, neither were the Passenger Pigeons, or the Dodo birds, or any one of thousands of species driven into extinction by the dominion of man.

Hence stewardship.

Stewardship doesn't quite work without a fundamental respect for the INTEGRITY OF CREATION, does it?

Truly, you're barking at the wrong tree. It wouldn't be the first time, you know.

It's good that you brought this up though because you have posted that you believe that women should not have control over things inside their bodies, but here you are demanding the right to kill things inside YOUR body. I think you have the right to defend yourself against disease or attack by cougars, it's the wholesale slaughter of billions of animals for food, fun, profit, and sport to which I object. It's the rainforest destruction, the over-fishing of the oceans, the endless killing to feed mankind's sempiternal greed.

LOL.

You were the one who suggested a unversal declaration of rights for ALL living things, were you not? I, on the other hand, merely pointed to the universal declaration of HUMAN rights.

It really is nice for you to think for yourself for a change, isn't it?

They can't be all that smart,

Sadly, that is true. Not all clergy ought to be in the clergy. In the same way that not all teachers ought to be teaching.

they're still advocating against decent birth control,

Nonsense. They are advocating FIDELITY to one's spouse. The proliferation of artificial birth control has created a serious, all-prevading, OCCASSION for sin.

Notice how the arguments in humanae vitae don't quite work when married couples use condoms? It just makes condom use superfluous.

they're still bashing gays despite all the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a normal variation in humans and most animals.

No one is bashing gays in the church I go to.

Saying that there is no compelling scientific evidence isn't bashing, now, is it? It just means that the church does not kowtow to absurd gay rhetorics.

What was it the doughhead said? Oh yeah, condoms cause AIDS. Yep, a real genius there.

Sigh.

The primary vector by which aids spread is PROMISCUITY, which is a SOCIAL problem.

Fidelity to one's spouse and condom use are mutually contradictory solutions since advocating condom use only fuels promiscuity. The question you should ask is IF relativizing the church's position (one should be faithful to one's spouse AND AT THE SAME TIME time use condoms) might work?

The answer, of course, is NO. Not only is the answer logical, there is a mountain of statistical data in africa to support it.

But of course, it ALWAYS boils down to your pet peeve, doesn't it? It isn't enough that you are free to pursue homosexual ass to your heart's content, you want nothing less than to force everyone else to accept it as a MORAL GOOD -- against the dictates of facts and logic, might I add.

Unbelieveable!

It's funny, Nums, do you ever notice that in almost every post you call me stupid, and yet I keep countering your arguments rationally and mostly politely despite the fact that you belong to a Church that has slaughtered millions of people in the name of Jesus in the last 2000 years. You belong to that church and you support it, but I'm stupid? Maybe you should let your wife post in your place.

LMAO.

My church has nothing to do with the absurdity in your own posts. That is something that is ENTIRELY your own making.

 

[numinus]

Nums,
I notice the quality of your posts is sagging down badly, you're reduced to one sentence or even one word responses--and many of them are simply attacks on me and have no discussion value at all. Maybe this would be a good time for you to become on of those Christians quietly practicing their religion in the privacy of their own lives.

Your responses have become, at best, non-responsive. Exactly how much of a reply from me did you imagine your non-responsive posts deserve, hmmm?

And more to the point, if you cannot fashion a responsive post from single-sentence statements, what makes you think you have a better chance at a formally-stated argument, eh?

Truly, if I could weep blood.....

You are running and hiding, there is nothing in Jesus' LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF that requires goatherder context or the windbaggery of philosphers or the Church.

Apparently not.

That was the real beauty of Jesus' message, it was simple, to the point, and it didn't require all the nonsense that goes along with churches and organized religions.

Of course it would be beautiful for you. Then you can easily justify the love you find in homosexual ass.

Of course the churche's aim was to make it esoteric because that's how they control the people and bend the laws to suit their own ends.

What stupid nonsense!

Would the church be issuing encyclicals for DISSEMINATION to the faithful if it were meant to be esoteric?????

Do you even know what 'esoteric' means????

Jesus' message is so simple and direct that anyone can see the sin in the Pope living like a king when millions of God's children are living in dire poverty.

Do you resent the perks that goes with your president's office? You might want to start with the $hit in your own backyard before noticing something else.

Anyone can see that sheltering pedophiles and allowing them to continue preying on children is wrong.

So, jesus ought to have allowed the prostitute to be stoned to death????

Hmmmm.

Yeah, right, you have nothing to say so you claim I said something somewhere else (but you don't quote it)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Duh?

and then you make a self-evident statement as if it was a diamond from the lips of the Pope. You see what I mean about the quality of your posts?

So, you admit that the mind/will lends the principle of volition to any action.

It is not as self-evident as you would like to think, fyi. A lot of morons still claim that thought is merely a manifestation of the brain, which is an entirely material existence. If I'm not mistaken, you argued for this same nonsense previously, in the abortion thread, I think.

NO, people often help each other even without sermons, where do you live that people don't help each other?

LOL.

If people helped others without consideration for their personal well-being all the time, then half of jesus' ministry would have been irrelevant. Surely, that is as close to divine love as humanly possible, the principle of volition that kant's categorical imperative logically follows.

Obviously, your ideas are bereft of facts, logic and, in this particular case, context.

People met and shared with strangers just like at the Mount of Olives, no sermon, just good people sharing what they had with others. And it went on for 3 days. No sermon, no religious twaddle, just good people sharing with each other and enjoying the music.

It really is easy to share when the act does not entail some huge personal sacrifice. As I have said, sharing at the mount of olives(?) would have entailed a huge personal sacrifice.

Again, CONTEXT.

Btw, you did quote yoda in another thread, and passed it off as a self-evident truth (which it was) without empirical evidence.

Your answer implies that I am less than you because I don't know (and I admit it) but that you DO know (which you don't). At least I am honest. As far as Buddha was concerned, he wasn't crucified for people's sins either, so your comment about him is outside the context of our discussion.

You are the one who want a discussion of the bible divorced from its context. Now, you want me to respond to the context of a discussion that lacks context.

See what I mean when I say 'unbelieveable nonsense'?

Boy, I'm glad you told me that, what a revelation! This is going to make all the religious newspapers, I bet the Pope will make you a Saint for this. See what I mean about your post quality?

So, what has buddha's enlightenment have to do with jesus, hmmm? Clearly the ultimate reality jesus described is different from what buddha described.

We are all immortal beings and thus death is but a transition in our existence. We come here to learn and we need to deal with the cards we are dealt. It was far better for me to transition from male to female in my presentation and continue my life despite the difficulty and the pain because of the learning experiences I've had. You would write better posts if you weren't so angry.

That is all well and good but the point was -- do you have fortitude in your own convictions -- the way the early christians demonstrated the fortitude of their faith? Obviously, you don't.

And yet, it is this faith, demonstrated to the point of death, that you now see fit to belittle.

Though I am not angry, one can clearly see that there is just cause to be angry at your nonsense.

We would need to qualify the "afraid to die" phrase in order to make a meaningful exchange of this. They were not afraid of an afterlife of punishment for eternity, they didn't fear the JUDGMENT of some monstrously cruel deity who would torture them for all of eternity for the sins they made in an eyeblink of time.

Nonsense.

Everyone is afraid to die. This fear is, in part, because of some form of judgement -- whether hellfire, or going back to life as worm or fungi, or eternal detachment from honor and family, etc. etc. Even buddhist samurai, the people utterly pre-occupied with death, fears sepukku. That is why they usually have seconds in ritual suicide, that they may not be 'dishonored' at the time of death.

Now, here comes a religion, bringing good news -- your own wretched existence is loved. No matter what you have done, you are saved, even from yourself.

And yet, you would rather listen to morons preaching nothing but eternal damnation.

Is that christianity's fault????

 

[numinus]

I think the fault can be laid at the door of the liars who blaspheme by telling people about the horrors that your monstrous deity will visit upon them if they don't do what the CHURCH tells them to do.

My 'monstrous deity'???

The same deity who says to follow the dictates of my conscience if and when it contradicts everyone else's, including the popes????

Are you even lucid????

Can you see the hypocrisy in this, taking the simple and easily understood words of Jesus LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF, TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, RETURN GOOD FOR EVIL... and twisting that into an insanely violent religion that tells people to fear their Creator because He will punish them for all of eternity. Total crap, Nums, and I'm sorry you bought into it.

Or are you suffering from some hormonal backlash????

Hellfire and brimstone and eternal punishment aren't frightening?

Sure, if you're stupid enough to believe it.

If god saw it fit to save you from the evils of the human condition, why will he not save you from an even more radical evil designed to last an eternity????

Unless, of course you don't want to be saved.

Oh yeah, just read the Old Testament and you can see how He is portrayed.

And what idiot do you suppose see only horrible things in what is supposed to be good news?

And that's exactly why I don't buy the blaspemy in the Bible or from the Pope or Fred Phelps, God is better than we CAN imagine, and I can imagine a God who doesn't murder His own children.

Sigh.

See what I mean by free will, or the necessity of divine revelation?

One does not "heap blashemy at..." something, blasphemy is heaped upon.

Thank you for pointing out that particular grammatical error. At least your post wasn't entirely useless.

The information was here and readily available long before the Christian religion came upon the scene. My guess is that some research on the history of religion before Christianity might be very enlightening for you.

LMAO.

What religion prior to christianity depicted a god that is absolute love, hmmm?

Between your errors of fact and errors of logic, I simply cannot imagine what valid conclusion you're aiming for.

The "condoms cause AIDS" comment and the pedophile philosophers to the contrary.

You say you have read humanae vitae, eh?

Tell me -- what makes you think that the people who spread aids, against the pope's teachings of spousal fidelity, would fasten condoms if the same pope said so????

Your condom nonsense operates on a premise that is nonsense and can only result in MORE nonsense.

Which proves my point exactly. Jesus' message didn't need to be filtered through Kantian ethics any more than it needed to be filtered through Daniel Boone's underwear. All the fancy philosphizing and Popery windbagging only serve to cloud the truth and muddy the waters and obscure the message.

Who's filtering anything, hmmm?

To my knowledge, YOU are the only one seriously proposing to tamper with ancient texts. And by all reckoning, outright tampering is certainly more atrocious than mere filtering.

Hobbes, Kant, the Popes, James Cargill, and Moshe Dyan cannot make Jesus' message any more plain, succinct, to the point, terse, or clear.

Correct.

Why you have to make it so complex seems to be a symptom of you having a lot of learned lumber in your head that you wish to use even when it's not necessary.

Because modern man is confronted with more complex moral issues.

Is there anyone who needs LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF, TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, RETURN GOOD FOR EVIL, and FORGIVE OTHERS AS YOU WISH TO BE FORGIVEN to be explained?

When one seeks love up a homosexual ass, then the commandment of love, indeed, needs to be explained. Otherwise, carry on.

You seem to know a bit about math, Nums, so you know that mathematical theorems tend to have a beautiful simplicity when they represent a universal truth.

I don't know if we are using the word 'simplicity' in the same way. In mathematics, beauty and simplicity refers to some discernable symmetry. In physics, it refers to the least number of assumptions and parameters.

Other than that, no one I know thinks differential geometry is simple.

Jesus' message is beautiful in its simplicity, a simplicity that makes it available to anyone without any context whatever.

Yes it is beautiful in its simplicity -- NOT SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS.

No threats, no punishments, just a simple prescription for how to live one's life.

I wouldn't say no punishments. After all, man will still suffer the effects of causation brought about by their OWN ACTIONS. Saying this is not, in any way, a threat.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, with your relative nonsense. Something is true if it follows from FACTS AND LOGIC. Truth does not suffer your absurd opinions, however vigorously argue for nonsense.

Hey, you're the one pushing ontological metaphysics which doesn't need empirical proof.

Then you should get out more. Duh?

Don't you mean I shoud get IN more, as IN church?

LOL. A criticism implies a RATIONAL ARGUMENT to the contrary. Need I say more?

Poking holes and pointing our inconsistencies and contradictions in religious cant seems pretty logical to me. You haven't been doing too good either, I mean "ontological metaphysics"? Where's the Rational Argument, Nums?

What part of this analogy can't you follow, hmmm?
God loves mankind so much, he subjects HIMSELF to mankind's judgement at the cross. Does it follow that if YOU love someone, you have to crucify SOMEONE ELSE to demonstrate that love? Duh?

You should go back to the "sighs", Nums, they don't make you seem as Pecksniffian as the "duhs". Crucifixtion as a mental health aid is probably not going to catch on. Now you may be masochistic enough for that kind of self-mutilation, but I doubt that the Creator of the Universe has to stoop to that level. You worship a God who is so incompetent that the only way He can communicate with His children is through tortuous death?

I know that the churches, especially the big ones like the Catholics, want to keep Christian dogma complex and esoteric so that people can be led to believe that they need to keep supporting the church and turning to it for help, comfort, and advice in order to be safe. You are a perfect example of that kind of theology with all your intellectual flights of fancy and ontological metaphysics, but Jesus' message was simple and accessible to all: LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF. These two commandments above all others and none of your Kantian ethics and Circles of Hell can change that.

With LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF in mind, how is it that the Pope lives like a king while millions of God's children are in sore want?

What unbelieveable nonsense! If jesus wanted to demonstrate the resurrection (hence his mastery over what people thought of as radical evil) shouldn't he die first???? Can you think of a way of demonstrating resurrection without dying??? Come on. Shift that factory of nonsense between your ears to overdrive and let's see what you come up with.

It's not generally considered grammatically correct to end a sentence with a preposition.

Easy! He could have led a full life healing people, raising the dead, and preaching until He died of old age and was put in His tomb, then He could have come scarpering out, danced around in all His youthful glory and floated up into Heaven. Nobody has to be tortured, nobody has to be crucified. If I can figure that out, then how long would it have taken God to figure it out?

You want this to long and painful and complex, but it doesn't have to be that way.

And whose fault is it that people require empirical proof of something as self-evident as divine love, hmmmm?

You really are big on placing blame, aren't you? Well, I guess it would have to be laid at God's door since He made us.

I don't feel better about the crucifixion. I feel better about the resurrection. Obviously, the resurrection becomes irrelevant without the crucifixion.

Your anger and obvious arrogance don't help you discuss with others, Nums. The resurrection would have been just as relevant if Jesus had died after a long, full life of helping others. What about that old geezer that Jesus brought back to life? Was that resurrection irrelevant because the old guy hadn't been crucified? People, normal people, don't need to be crucified to understand and appreciate resurrection or reincarnation.

And he still is. Of course. It is always easy to make statements after the fact.

Lots of people knew all about it long before Christianity came on the scene.

Let me make this as simple as sunday school. The idea is IF god can bridge the infinite gap betwen divinity and human mortality -- hence demonstrating that he understands the people he purports to love. Obviously, an absolutely invincible and majestic god wouldn't do, would it? Otherwise, you'd go about whining all day about how god doesn't understand you. Think about it.

Wow, you really have a low opinion of God, don't you? You think that God has to embrace blood payment and all the nasty violence attributed to Him in the Old Testament just to prove He understands us? He has to get crucified to talk to us? If God was as incompetent as you and the Old Testament paint Him to be He'd never have managed to make the Universe in the first place.

Sigh.

Thanks, Nums, I really like your sweet little "sighs". Does you wife like it when you do that too?

For the last time, what part of free will don't you understand?????

You might remember that I've noted how the quality of your posts has gone downhill recently, well this is a good example. Nothing in this response addresses--logically or rationally--what I posted. Try to be a little more clear please.

Good god! Explaining things to you is worse than constipation!

Prunes, Nums, prunes or prune juice, cutting back on chocolate can help, and drinking more water too. Exercise can free things up if you spend too much time at a computer key board and as a last resort you might want to try coffee enemas. The caffeine absorbed through the mucosal walls of the rectum stimulate the excretory processes including the lymph system. A good resource book would be THE GERSON THERAPY by Charlotte Gerson who explains her father's work in great detail.

God creates good things from what man screws up.
Is there anything -- anything at all -- particularly hard to comprehend in that???? That's easy. Christians don't think that. Duh?

Have you ever actually READ the Bible? Your last paragraph would tend to mitigate against it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Precisely! Hence the need for salvation. Man's dominion is not only an accomplished fact, it is self-evident as well. I imagined that would have been obvious by now.

Ah yes, but you presented that "dominion" as a God-given right rather than an usurpation by sinful humans.

Hence stewardship. Stewardship doesn't quite work without a fundamental respect for the INTEGRITY OF CREATION, does it? Truly, you're barking at the wrong tree. It wouldn't be the first time, you know.

Trees already have enough bark. The Bible doesn't say "stewardship" nor has Christianity taught the concept of stewardship, but rather they have traditionally taught that dominion meant dominance, enslaving of nature, exploiting and using it, they have taught that all of Creation was put here for our benefit to use as we saw fit. Why do you think the churches have been so down on animals' rights, on care for the environment?

You were the one who suggested a unversal declaration of rights for ALL living things, were you not? I, on the other hand, merely pointed to the universal declaration of HUMAN rights. It really is nice for you to think for yourself for a change, isn't it?

Once again you are advocating religious dogma instead of thinking for yourself. How can you truly love God and and destroy His creation for inconsequential reasons? You are pushing the standard Christian concept of man and God on one side and all of the rest of Creation on the other. Anthropocentric it's called. I think that a recognition of and reverence for all life is where we need to go. But there is middle ground--which you will ignore by going to a cheap shot about small pox or some such--in which people can defend themselves against genuine threats while giving part of the world to other lifeforms so that they can live as God made them.

Sadly, that is true. Not all clergy ought to be in the clergy. In the same way that not all teachers ought to be teaching.

Nonsense. They are advocating FIDELITY to one's spouse. The proliferation of artificial birth control has created a serious, all-prevading, OCCASSION for sin. Notice how the arguments in humanae vitae don't quite work when married couples use condoms? It just makes condom use superfluous.

Occasion for sin? What you mean is encouragement for sin, don't you? We part company here too, I don't think that recreational sex is sin if one is not spreading disease, causing unwanted children, or violating one's vows. Birth control is a good thing, much better than abortion or abusing of unwanted children. Condoms in marriage prevent unwanted pregnancy, seems to be working... maybe you're using them the wrong way.

No one is bashing gays in the church I go to. Saying that there is no compelling scientific evidence isn't bashing, now, is it? It just means that the church does not kowtow to absurd gay rhetorics.

Wrong on both counts. Your church condemns gay people and transgendered people, it has a history of killing them and burning them at the stake (Joan of Arc comes to mind) and the Bible has scriptures that condemn gays to death. Additionally, when the majority uses their power to persecute a minority with no scientific evidence to support their religious claims and when nothing substantive can be produced to show that gay or transgendered people are damaging to society, that too is bashing. Your church has had pogrom against gay and transpeople for hundreds of years despite the fact that in times gone by the Catholic church married gay people--even gay saints.

Sigh.

Okay, they're sweet, but don't over do it.

The primary vector by which aids spread is PROMISCUITY, which is a SOCIAL problem.

Fidelity to one's spouse and condom use are mutually contradictory solutions since advocating condom use only fuels promiscuity. The question you should ask is IF relativizing the church's position (one should be faithful to one's spouse AND AT THE SAME TIME time use condoms) might work?

The answer, of course, is NO. Not only is the answer logical, there is a mountain of statistical data in africa to support it.

But of course, it ALWAYS boils down to your pet peeve, doesn't it? It isn't enough that you are free to pursue homosexual ass to your heart's content, you want nothing less than to force everyone else to accept it as a MORAL GOOD -- against the dictates of facts and logic, might I add.

What's unbelievable is that you are so fixated on homosexual ass, so much so that you can't learn. Let's try again slowly, Nums, pay attention: I'm not a homosexual, I've never had sex with a man.

But, that said, I don't see any reason why sex between consenting adults (within the boundaries that I set down above: no disease, no children, no violating vows) should be called sinful. And your attacks on gay men especially are unwarranted in that more heterosexual people have AIDS than gays and gay men don't produce unwanted children. You are hypocritical to ignore Jesus commandments to you in favor of using the Bible as a weapon against people you don't like, but whom you are fixated on anyway.

My church has nothing to do with the absurdity in your own posts. That is something that is ENTIRELY your own making.

No revisionism here, eh Nums? It was all those bad Christians who ran the Inquisition wasn't it? Joan of Arc was doing drugs and burned herself at the stake, didn't she? Have your ever read about what the Catholics did in the New World, the way they committed genocide on the indigenous people's? No? Well no surpise there, ignorance is indeed blissful isn't it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your responses have become, at best, non-responsive. Exactly how much of a reply from me did you imagine your non-responsive posts deserve, hmmm? And more to the point, if you cannot fashion a responsive post from single-sentence statements, what makes you think you have a better chance at a formally-stated argument, eh?

Not much of a defense of your vague and pointless responses, Nums.

Truly, if I could weep blood.....

Another good example of a non-response--used twice already on one page of posts.

Apparently not. Of course it would be beautiful for you. Then you can easily justify the love you find in homosexual ass.

Again we have a non-response in another false personal attack.

What stupid nonsense! Would the church be issuing encyclicals for DISSEMINATION to the faithful if it were meant to be esoteric????? Do you even know what 'esoteric' means????

Yes, actually they would, especially if they were trying to spin something really simple like LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF into something that would allow them to collect huge amounts of money, build a world-spanning empire, let the Pope live like a king while millions of God's children live in abject poverty, and so that the Chruch can sell Papal dispensations to control people and garner more funds. There is good money in obfuscation. We should also note that the Catholic church didn't want Bible to be printed and given to the general public--hard to lie to the people when they can read the scriptures themselves.

Look at the stuff you post, Nums, it's all this airy-fairy Kantian ethics and Circles of Hell and ontological metaphysics instead of simply noting what Jesus said.

Do you resent the perks that goes with your president's office? You might want to start with the $hit in your own backyard before noticing something else.

Got you on that one, didn't I? The President is a flogging politician, he doesn't bill himself as Christ's Vicar on Earth. The Pope is supposed to be setting an example, isn't he? The embodyment of Christ as leader of Christ's church, but instead he is the head of a vast financial empire that lives off the very people that the Bible says he should be helping. Hypocrisy in a politician is expected... oh right, hypocrisy in a Christian is too. When the very best of your church, the man who was chosen to lead and set the example, who is the final word between God and man in your church lives at the egregious expense of millions of downtrodden people, then that needs to be pointed out. Your church has no credibility when it acts this way. Much like it has none where pedophile priests are concerned.

So, jesus ought to have allowed the prostitute to be stoned to death????

Why? Was she having sex with a minor? I think the story was edited, if it happened at all. Jesus was too heads up not to have dragged the responsible man in too, I mean the woman wasn't having sex by herself so why was she the only one to be punished? Misogynistic attitudes rampant in Christian dogma is why.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Duh?

I assume that you are accusing me of misquoting you. Got proof?

So, you admit that the mind/will lends the principle of volition to any action.

It is not as self-evident as you would like to think, fyi. A lot of morons still claim that thought is merely a manifestation of the brain, which is an entirely material existence. If I'm not mistaken, you argued for this same nonsense previously, in the abortion thread, I think.

Unless I am mistaken, you have yet to prove that mind/will doesn't arise from the physical properties of the brain as many scientists think. I don't personally believe that, but I can't prove it one way or the other. Can you?

If people helped others without consideration for their personal well-being all the time, then half of jesus' ministry would have been irrelevant. Surely, that is as close to divine love as humanly possible, the principle of volition that kant's categorical imperative logically follows. Obviously, your ideas are bereft of facts, logic and, in this particular case, context.

Really? Got any proof? I gave examples from my life, your life may have been different. In light of your arrogant and superior attitude I suspect that people might not stop to generously offer to help you--I would though if I knew it was you just so I could make the point that you are wrong. Childish of me, I know, but it would still be fun to do.

It really is easy to share when the act does not entail some huge personal sacrifice. As I have said, sharing at the mount of olives(?) would have entailed a huge personal sacrifice.

How would it have been a HUGE personal sacrifice? More than 3 days like at Woodstock, I doubt it.

Btw, you did quote yoda in another thread, and passed it off as a self-evident truth (which it was) without empirical evidence.

Well, I guess you are more versed in the quotes of Yoda than I so I'll have to take your word for it despite the fact that you have not provided anything to back up your statement.

You are the one who want a discussion of the bible divorced from its context. Now, you want me to respond to the context of a discussion that lacks context. See what I mean when I say 'unbelieveable nonsense'?

And you are the one hiding behind a phony argument of "context" rather than admitting that Jesus' message was simple and universal. To maintain the Catholic empire you NEED the complex dogma so that people have to turn to the church for explanations. Basically, it's lying, making something simple into something complex so that you can manipulate others to your benefit. (You being the Catholic Church in this case rather than you, Nums.)

So, what has buddha's enlightenment have to do with jesus, hmmm? Clearly the ultimate reality jesus described is different from what buddha described.

I didn't think Buddha had much to do with this conversation either, but you brought him up when we were discussing crucified saviors predating the Christian story.

That is all well and good but the point was -- do you have fortitude in your own convictions -- the way the early christians demonstrated the fortitude of their faith? Obviously, you don't.

Another wild ass accusation with nothing to back it up. Your cred is taking a beating here, Nums.

And yet, it is this faith, demonstrated to the point of death, that you now see fit to belittle. Though I am not angry, one can clearly see that there is just cause to be angry at your nonsense.

Another wild ass accusation with nothing to back it up. Your cred is taking a beating here, Nums. How do you get from my objecting to the blasphemy in the Bible to my belittling someone who dies for what they believe in? Hello? Earth to Nums, I haven't said anything about people dying for what they believe in.

Everyone is afraid to die.

I never said they weren't, you would respond better if you actually READ what I write.

This fear is, in part, because of some form of judgement -- whether hellfire, or going back to life as worm or fungi, or eternal detachment from honor and family, etc. etc.

Not for everybody, I noted for example the indigenous peoples, but your examples were all of "civilized" societies with complex religious traditions, Takers as opposed to Leavers (if you're not familiar with the terms, they come from the works of Daniel Quinn who talked about human history and refered to people as Takers of responsibility who did not trust God to provide for them and Leavers who left the responsibility of everything to God).

Even buddhist samurai, the people utterly pre-occupied with death, fears sepukku. That is why they usually have seconds in ritual suicide, that they may not be 'dishonored' at the time of death.

Now, here comes a religion, bringing good news -- your own wretched existence is loved. No matter what you have done, you are saved, even from yourself.

And yet, you would rather listen to morons preaching nothing but eternal damnation. Is that christianity's fault????

Since they are the ones teaching eternal damnation and Hellfire, Judgment Day, and the Bible is full of God's vengeance and tells us to fear Him, then yes, I think it's Christianity's fault. I don't believe it, hence my drive to reform the Bible and get it to reflect what Jesus' message really was rather than the nonsense we get nowadays.