The Penalty For Blaphemy

[Asimov]

First, is to be true to our self, of our altruistic values. Complacency and peace are NOT the same thing. Some things are worth dying, to have them for others. It is the concept of grace allowing unconditional forgiveness, even in a torturous situation, that always yields the best internal state for any situation. Grace is understanding that EVERYONE is doing their best, in the situation they're in, with the coping skills available to them. "Walk a mile in their shoes before we criticize or abuse." "Forgive them for they know not what they do." How can we be angry or condemn someone (or self) if that is their best? What else can we expect but their best? This ends condemnation, hence internally saved from it. (IMO, heaven and hell are states of mind, so this compassion helps save you from hell.) You do know that forgiveness is for yourself, not your perpetrator? However, that does NOT mean we condone or excuse their behavior. EVERYONE must be accountable and responsible for their actions, as that is how people change for the better.

 

Altruism is evil, Amanda. I have no altruistic values. Unconditional forgiveness? No. Some people don't deserve forgiveness for what they've done. I don't expect "best" nor do I expect "worst", I expect rationality. I don't have compassion for people who do not choose life, who do not choose to be rational. Not everyone is doing their best.

 

Speaking of forgiveness, this story portrays the forgiveness being done spiritually, internally, within us. He did not look down and say, "Hey you guys, I forgive you." He knew they were not ready for it, and they would have just thrown more things at him. He did it within him self. And yet, it is said, that if we come to Jesus, in our spirit, imagination, or whatever, right now, and ask for his forgiveness, he would say he forgave us a long time ago.

 

Actually, he did say "hey you guys, I forgive you," albeit in a roundabout way. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do". I don't need Jesus' forgiveness because I have nothing that I need to be accountable for that I have not already dealt with myself.

 

If Jesus would have looked down from the cross and said, "all of you should be annihilated for what you have done to me", then he would have been 'contaminated' by their 'sin'. Then he would have had hatred and vindictiveness inside of him. He knew that was why they were acting the way they were. He refused to be 'contaminated' by understanding and letting go. He saw his perpetrators as being the victims, releasing him from being the victim. These principles allow and promote emotionally healthy states in all of us. It's a pretty good story, IMO, and I hope it's not true... not about an innocent guy getting crucified... however, being a martyr is probably what led to his popularity.

 

They should have been annihilated. People who don't choose rationality forsake their highest potential as a human being. It's not a good story. Jesus forsook himself as a rational being by giving up his life, the people who executed him forsook themselves as rational beings by sacrificing his life. It's one big story of what not to do.

 

BTW, much of Jesus’ concepts were right in line with the Atheist movement, IMO. I don't know Ayn Rand, however, Jesus and Madeline O'Hare saw eye to eye. Jesus was about God within you, NOT out there somewhere, and moved through us. It was about being accountable and responsible, not to pray for something to fall from the sky! We have to make it happen. "Ye too are gods."

 

We are not Gods. We are humans. We don't require another lable in order to be better than who we currently are. We need to accept the values of life and go with that. Accepting what is, not trying to make the world conform to irrational whims.

[SkepticOfBible]

Amanda, the trinity idea could be from the earlier Vedic religion, where Buddhism and Hinduism came from,

Being a ex-hindu, I am not sure I have heard about another Vedic Religion. The Vedas (hence Vedic) are pretty much the Hindu scriptures.

 

After studying the history of doctrine of Trinity and understanding it to pretty good extent, I can confidently say that the Christian trinity is something that was uniquely created on his own because of the following reason that you mentioned.

 

What would be accurate to say that the Christian Trinity was heavily influenced by Pagan theology, not Buddism or Hinduism, especially considering that the formula was given by the Pagan king Constantine

 

but it could also be that it was an attempt to explain the conflicts between monotheism and Jesus still being God.

 

And not only that, early Christians , ie Church Fathers also mention about the trinity.

 

It fits pretty good, God Father = Ishvara, Jesus = Paramatma, and HS = Brahman.

 

Actually the Hindu Trinity is actually the compromised of the following three who have designated tasks to maintain the eternal universe

 

Brahma = The Creator

Vishnu = The Preserver

Shiva = The Destroyer

 

 

Ishvara and Paramatma means God, and Brahman means Universe. So the equation that you coming up doesn't work

Also, I might note, that Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, nor the messiah, nor the Son of God... it has always been the people around him

 

Hi Amanda,

 

While Jesus didn't advertise it to crowds of people, he did claim to be the messiah and the son of the Blessed(God) to certain people, who were not his disciples.

In court, Jesus claimed he was the messiah and son of God.

 

Mark 14:60-62(ESV)

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have you no

answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right

hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Early in his ministry, Jesus also claimed to be the messiah in the following conversation he had with a woman:

 

John 4:25-26(ESV)

The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called

Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."

Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

Maybe it was their way of acknowledging that their idea of God was not completed yet?

What makes you say so? What acknowledgement are you talking about? The verses I present expresses certainty not doubt.

[Ouroboros]

Being a ex-hindu, I am not sure I have heard about another Vedic Religion. The Vedas (hence Vedic) are pretty much the Hindu scriptures.

The pre-hindu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_religion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_civilization.

 

I'm referring to the religion in the Vedic civilization that existed until the 1st millennium BCE. Hinduism is an offspring of this religion.

 

After studying the history of doctrine of Trinity and understanding it to pretty good extent, I can confidently say that the Christian trinity is something that was uniquely created on his own because of the following reason that you mentioned.

Okay. I can accept that.

 

What would be accurate to say that the Christian Trinity was heavily influenced by Pagan theology, not Buddism or Hinduism, especially considering that the formula was given by the Pagan king Constantine

I don't think paganism had any trinity ideas going at all. The Gnostics had to some extent, but not in the fashion Christianity did it. It sounds more like it was a new invention then.

 

And not only that, early Christians , ie Church Fathers also mention about the trinity.

Do you know how early in the history?

 

It fits pretty good, God Father = Ishvara, Jesus = Paramatma, and HS = Brahman.

 

Actually the Hindu Trinity is actually the compromised of the following three who have designated tasks to maintain the eternal universe

 

Brahma = The Creator

Vishnu = The Preserver

Shiva = The Destroyer

Yup, in Hinduism, but how I read it, those are the ones in the Vedic religion. Pre-dating Hinduism.

 

 

Ishvara and Paramatma means God, and Brahman means Universe. So the equation that you coming up doesn't work

Okay, I can buy that.

 

I took the definition from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_religion

 

And I suggest that you log into wikipedia and correct their information, because it's confusing to read those definitions (in several places on the web) and no one fixes it. It's very frustrating to read something and then it comes out to be wrong. But since you know this, I really, strongly, recommend that you change the Wikipedia entry above. This infomation actually have managed to spread over the internet too, so I found several other places saying the same thing, and it looked like they had copied it from the Wikipedia entry. At least if this one could be fixed so we have one place where it is correct.

 

 

Hi Amanda,

 

While Jesus didn't advertise it to crowds of people, he did claim to be the messiah and the son of the Blessed(God) to certain people, who were not his disciples.

In court, Jesus claimed he was the messiah and son of God.

 

Mark 14:60-62(ESV)

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have you no

answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right

hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Early in his ministry, Jesus also claimed to be the messiah in the following conversation he had with a woman:

 

John 4:25-26(ESV)

The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called

Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."

Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

Maybe it was their way of acknowledging that their idea of God was not completed yet?

What makes you say so? What acknowledgement are you talking about? The verses I present expresses certainty not doubt.

Isn't that just one interpretation? Isn't it you that now claim "The Blessed" have to be "God"? That's how most Christians read it, but I'd rather go with Amanda and say that in the verses where Jesus supposedly say anything about "being God", it can be interpreted different or it even might be a redaction to make Jesus look divine, while the older manuscripts maybe didn't. I know it's a speculation. But if you read some of the Gnostic gospels, you do get the image of a human teacher, that was blessed or anointed with some esoteric knowledge, not a divine being. The Blessed one can be interpreted that Jesus was a prophet.

 

Another point is that Messiah wasn't supposed to be Son of God. Messiah doesn't automatically imply the divinity, that's a Christian construct, and unfortunately it affects our thinking that it is equated to the godhood, while it really isn't. The Jews did not, and are still not, waiting for the Son of God, but a human that's going to be a human.

 

The part where it says "I am he", which is a reference to the burning bush experience with Moses, I think is a twist that was added later to hint that Jesus was God, without having Jesus really saying it.

 

There are places where the disciples want to pray to Jesus and he tell them not to, and he also tells them that you can only pray to God. That is a mysterious verse if Jesus was God. I suspect that's an older verse.

[julian]

HanSolo,

 

I'm referring to the religion in the Vedic civilization that existed until the 1st millennium BCE. Hinduism is an offspring of this religion.

 

Well, it's a bit inaccurate to say "offspring". Hinduism is what came of the Vedic religion through time and change (as a very stupid comparison, look at music, a rock band from 1994 is very different from one in 1968, but it is the same style which developed, changed and led to new forms of it).

 

Yup, in Hinduism, but how I read it, those are the ones in the Vedic religion. Pre-dating Hinduism.

 

Well, I can't say that they are in any way similar. However, you might be interested to know that Zoroaster was a Hindu priest who rebelled and started his own thing. Zoroastrianism in turn influenced Christianity (perhaps indirectly).

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo,

 

I'm referring to the religion in the Vedic civilization that existed until the 1st millennium BCE. Hinduism is an offspring of this religion.

 

Well, it's a bit inaccurate to say "offspring". Hinduism is what came of the Vedic religion through time and change (as a very stupid comparison, look at music, a rock band from 1994 is very different from one in 1968, but it is the same style which developed, changed and led to new forms of it).

Well, I don't think the word "offspring" is completely wrong, but it doesn't matter. Whatever you say.

 

Yup, in Hinduism, but how I read it, those are the ones in the Vedic religion. Pre-dating Hinduism.

 

Well, I can't say that they are in any way similar. However, you might be interested to know that Zoroaster was a Hindu priest who rebelled and started his own thing. Zoroastrianism in turn influenced Christianity (perhaps indirectly).

I don't know if they're similar or not. I was told that my understanding about the 3 God characters where wrong, because Hinduism doesn't say it that way, I'm confused. Are they related or not? If not, then maybe I wasn't so far off after all. Vedic through Zoroastrianism did influence Christianity then... or?

 

It's all speculation after all, since we can only draw lines between parallels in the different religions. Our discussion was if Christianity's Trinity could have been borrowed from the earlier Vedic pantheon, and they do have similarities. But on the other hand I got to know that the information about the Vedic Pantheon I had was wrong...

 

I didn't know Zoroaster was Hindu priest, that's pretty cool.

[Amanda]

Altruism is evil, Amanda. I have no altruistic values. Unconditional forgiveness? No. Some people don't deserve forgiveness for what they've done. I don't expect "best" nor do I expect "worst", I expect rationality. I don't have compassion for people who do not choose life, who do not choose to be rational. Not everyone is doing their best.

Asimov, please see definition of altruistic here.

 

Everybody makes the best decision they can at the time. When someone decides to do something, there is something within them that tells them there is a bigger 'pay off' to do it than not do it... or they would NOT do it! No exceptions, and if you think you have one... I'd like to hear it. Think it through first, please.

 

Actually, he did say "hey you guys, I forgive you," albeit in a roundabout way. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do". I don't need Jesus' forgiveness because I have nothing that I need to be accountable for that I have not already dealt with myself.

You're right, you don't need the forgiveness of Jesus. What we needed then are the coping skills to handle the situation we were in then. Jesus was a model. When we 'forgive', it is not for our perpetrator, it is for our self.

 

They should have been annihilated. People who don't choose rationality forsake their highest potential as a human being. It's not a good story. Jesus forsook himself as a rational being by giving up his life, the people who executed him forsook themselves as rational beings by sacrificing his life. It's one big story of what not to do.

Asimov, they should have been annhialated?

 

Ghandi says that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. A certain amount of compassion, a bit of empathy can be very beneficial for a person to have.

 

We are not Gods. We are humans. We don't require another lable in order to be better than who we currently are. We need to accept the values of life and go with that. Accepting what is, not trying to make the world conform to irrational whims.

 

Well then, all this depends on how you want to define 'god' then, doesn't it?

[Dhampir]

1. I think the second definition of altruism is the one that has Asimov calling it evil. I'm in agreement with him there.

 

2. Unconditional forgiveness is not unconditionally good. Why should a rape victim forgive a remorseless rapist?

 

3.

Ghandi says that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. A certain amount of compassion, a bit of empathy can be very beneficial for a person to have.

Agreed, however, the statement came in response to the statement saying that Jesus at any point could have annihilated his executors. For Jesus to sacrifice his life when he could have saved it was wrong.

 

4.

Well then, all this depends on how you want to define 'god' then, doesn't it?

Well, duh. To apply a definition to something which heretofore had been defined so differently renders both nearly meaningless. Either we're human or we're gods, which is it?

[Amanda]

Actually the Hindu Trinity is actually the compromised of the following three who have designated tasks to maintain the eternal universe

 

Brahma = The Creator

Vishnu = The Preserver

Shiva = The Destroyer

Hi Skeptic of the Bible! This is very interesting to me too! It says in the scripture that everything that was created was created by God and for God... therefore Satan, aka the destroyer, too. I think it is only the distroyer of the carnal nature, the ego. Please tell me how you see the symbolism of these entities in the Hindu perspectives.

 

Ishvara and Paramatma means God, and Brahman means Universe. So the equation that you coming up doesn't work

I do know that Buddhism does acknowledge the power, the consciousness, and the divine rapture. May I ask, what are these aspects of God, and how do God and the universe differ? I thought that Hindus believed in Pantheism, therefore the Universe and God are the same, right?

Also, I might note, that Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, nor the messiah, nor the Son of God... it has always been the people around him

 

Hi Amanda,

 

While Jesus didn't advertise it to crowds of people, he did claim to be the messiah and the son of the Blessed(God) to certain people, who were not his disciples.

In court, Jesus claimed he was the messiah and son of God.

 

Mark 14:60-62(ESV)

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have you no

answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right

hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Early in his ministry, Jesus also claimed to be the messiah in the following conversation he had with a woman:

 

John 4:25-26(ESV)

The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called

Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."

Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

Maybe it was their way of acknowledging that their idea of God was not completed yet?

What makes you say so? What acknowledgement are you talking about? The verses I present expresses certainty not doubt.

Skeptic of the Bible, yes... I am a bit surprised that even this amount of acknowledgement is made... however, as you even note here... it is NOT Jesus who is touting this claim... but of others. At best, he is substantiating their claim... however, not in a boastful way. One of them was to his detriment! And even so, it is not to show he was special, or divine, but that we too are like him, all of us equally so. He was to set a role model for us, how we are to consider our self, IMO. Everything he did, we too can do. He who thought it not robbery to be equal to God. This, to me, supports the Atheist movement more than anything. It is not saying we have 'magical' powers, but that we have authority over our own life and that we have the ability to control our own reality in a way that governs our own life. Back then we were seen helpless to God/Gods. We do have the ability to make things happen, don't we? Or should we wait for it to fall from the sky onto our lap?

[Amanda]

1. I think the second definition of altruism is the one that has Asimov calling it evil. I'm in agreement with him there.

Hi Dhampir! Of the two definitions, you find the second one evil. Please explain?

 

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

 

2. Unconditional forgiveness is not unconditionally good. Why should a rape victim forgive a remorseless rapist?

For them self. Why should they allow their perpetrator to cause them to live in a place within themself of hatred, vendictiveness, and retribution? Please understand, forgiveness is for one's self... NOT FOR THEIR PERPETRATOR.

 

3.

Ghandi says that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. A certain amount of compassion, a bit of empathy can be very beneficial for a person to have.

Agreed, however, the statement came in response to the statement saying that Jesus at any point could have annihilated his executors. For Jesus to sacrifice his life when he could have saved it was wrong.

No, this is not about Jesus being able to annhilate his executors. It's about how he handled a situation. Again, it is about understanding that complacency and peace are different. Do you agree there are some things worth standing up for in this world, no matter what the cost? I think there are, however, I don't have the guts to do it to this extent. Sorry.

 

4.

Well then, all this depends on how you want to define 'god' then, doesn't it?

Well, duh. To apply a definition to something which heretofore had been defined so differently renders both nearly meaningless. Either we're human or we're gods, which is it?

What is your definition of god? How does your definition of being human limit you?

[Dhampir]

behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself

You don't see the problem there? Altruism brings as much harm as it does good to those it benefits. It is possible that everyone would be taken care of if everyone would go out of their way to help one another, but the fact is the number of people that an altruist helps is disproportional to the number of people helping that person, meaning that said person will always come up short, and the gain is generally not justified by it.

 

For them self.

My point exactly.Why would a person forgive someone who's incapable of accepting forgiveness? That is an assent to the actions taken against that person. Casting aside hate does not require forgiveness, moving on does not require forgiveness. Take it from someone who knows a thing or two about it; there's a definite difference between holding a grudge and holding someone responsible. I have been wronged by quite a few people, whom I may never see fit to forgive, but I don't bear *much* in the way of resentment toward them; by and large I am indifferent to those people. Forgiveness is not a virtue.

 

 

No, this is not about Jesus being able to annhilate his executors. It's about how he handled a situation. Again, it is about understanding that complacency and peace are different. Do you agree there are some things worth standing up for in this world, no matter what the cost? I think there are, however, I don't have the guts to do it to this extent. Sorry.

Martyrdom is nothing I would consider a virtue.

 

I'll respond to that last part later, I have to go to bed now.

[SkepticOfBible]

Hi Skeptic of the Bible! This is very interesting to me too! It says in the scripture that everything that was created was created by God and for God... therefore Satan, aka the destroyer, too. I think it is only the distroyer of the carnal nature, the ego. Please tell me how you see the symbolism of these entities in the Hindu perspectives.

 

Perhaps these should answer some of your questions

 

http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/hindu_trinity.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Nature_of_God

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/

 

 

I do know that Buddhism does acknowledge the power, the consciousness, and the divine rapture. May I ask, what are these aspects of God, and how do God and the universe differ? I thought that Hindus believed in Pantheism, therefore the Universe and God are the same, right?

 

Indeed according to Hindu Theology they are the same, however in the mind of the common practicing hindu they are usually seperated out, just like Christian percieve Jesus and God seperate. Eg hindu don't worship the Brahman(universe) but God(Paramatma), or their favourite deity.

 

You gotta understand one thing, just like Judaism, each Hindu would have their opinion about the theology. In a way hindus believe in religious pluralism, cause according to them essentially they all lead to the same place

 

Skeptic of the Bible, yes... I am a bit surprised that even this amount of acknowledgement is made... however, as you even note here... it is NOT Jesus who is touting this claim... but of others. At best, he is substantiating their claim... however, not in a boastful way.

Err, if I ask you "Whether or not, you are the President of the US?" and if you yes, are substantiating my claim or impersonating someone that you are not.

 

In four Gospel Jesus is openly touted as the Jewish Messiah, there is no doubt about that

[SkepticOfBible]

I'm referring to the religion in the Vedic civilization that existed until the 1st millennium BCE. Hinduism is an offspring of this religion.

 

Oh right, as Hindu I had always percieved those as Hindus. I haven't studied this aspect carefully yet, but I suspect the dogma and doctrine were similar to Hinduism

 

I don't think paganism had any trinity ideas going at all

Indeed, but they did had a Polytheisthic(multiple God) belief system.

 

Do you know how early in the history?

 

Here are some of the comments by the early Church fathers

 

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

 

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

 

Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

 

Theophilus of Antioch

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

 

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

 

 

Tertullian

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

 

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

 

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

 

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).

 

And I suggest that you log into wikipedia and correct their information, because it's confusing to read those definitions (in several places on the web) and no one fixes it. It's very frustrating to read something and then it comes out to be wrong. But since you know this, I really, strongly, recommend that you change the Wikipedia entry above

 

Reading in context, they don't seem so wrong

 

The Vedic pantheon was interpreted as a unitary view of the universe with God seen as immanent and transcendent in the forms of Ishvara (God's Personal Feature), Paramatma (God's localised feature) and Brahman (God's Impersonal Energies). There are also conservative schools which continue portions of the historical Vedic religion largely unchanged until today (see Śrauta, Nambudiri).

 

I don't see them say that that this is the Hindu Trinity, check out my link that I gave to Amanda

 

What I gave you were literal meaning of those words, and as Amanda pointed out hinduism pretty much beliefs in Pantheism. My point was that the Christian Trinity, which is three Persona enveloped in the same Godhood is not the same.

 

They sound similar but it is not the same

 

According to Christianity, the Father , Son and HS are interconnected together to represent a hive mind, like the Borg. However the creation is seperate from he creator.

 

In Hinduism, the creator and the creation are synomous, ie we are borg,(you, me and the deities).

Isn't that just one interpretation? Isn't it you that now claim "The Blessed" have to be "God"? .....

Another point is that Messiah wasn't supposed to be Son of God. Messiah doesn't automatically imply the divinity, that's a Christian construct, and unfortunately it affects our thinking that it is equated to the godhood, while it really isn't. The Jews did not, and are still not, waiting for the Son of God, but a human that's going to be a human.

 

Err, if you read my statement carefully, I wasn't debating that about whether Jesus claimed that he was God, I was debating with her that Jesus did claim to the "Son of God" and "jewish Messiah"

[Ouroboros]

Do you know how early in the history?

 

Here are some of the comments by the early Church fathers

...

Thanks. It looks like they had it figured out in 70 AD already. That's pretty early. I thought they didn't figure that out until the second century. Go figure.

 

Reading in context, they don't seem so wrong

 

The Vedic pantheon was interpreted as a unitary view of the universe with God seen as immanent and transcendent in the forms of Ishvara (God's Personal Feature), Paramatma (God's localised feature) and Brahman (God's Impersonal Energies). There are also conservative schools which continue portions of the historical Vedic religion largely unchanged until today (see Śrauta, Nambudiri).

 

I don't see them say that that this is the Hindu Trinity, check out my link that I gave to Amanda

 

What I gave you were literal meaning of those words, and as Amanda pointed out hinduism pretty much beliefs in Pantheism. My point was that the Christian Trinity, which is three Persona enveloped in the same Godhood is not the same.

 

They sound similar but it is not the same

Yes and no. You judge it based on current traditional Christianity. But if you would see the trinity, before it was called trinity, as Jesus just as a different incarnation of God, and the Holy Spirit as a different incarnation of God, and God Father as a different incarnation as God, then God is one and just changes "shell", then I think they're close.

 

In the early church there were so many different competing views of Jesus, if he was son of God or not, if he was spirit or not, if he had a physical body or not and so on... so I'm just proposing a new view that maybe can explain how it started. Just like Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma is part of the Trimurti, it could be the same for Jesus, HS and Father. It might not be how Christians see it today, but my speculation wasn't how they see it today, but how they might have seen it when it started, and have an explanation to where it came from. But you might be right, maybe Christianity invented the trinity concept, and maybe even it is the truth, or maybe (as I think) they borrowed it from another religion.

 

According to Christianity, the Father , Son and HS are interconnected together to represent a hive mind, like the Borg. However the creation is seperate from he creator.

 

In Hinduism, the creator and the creation are synomous, ie we are borg,(you, me and the deities).

Well, that's how the particular Christians that you're thinking about see it. Gnostic Christians and Christian Essenes see it different. (And many others too)

 

Err, if you read my statement carefully, I wasn't debating that about whether Jesus claimed that he was God, I was debating with her that Jesus did claim to the "Son of God" and "jewish Messiah"

Okay.

[Asimov]

Asimov, please see definition of altruistic here.

 

Don't think I'm ignorning you Amanda...I'm moving to another province today, so I will get to it later!!!

[Amanda]

behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself

You don't see the problem there? Altruism brings as much harm as it does good to those it benefits. It is possible that everyone would be taken care of if everyone would go out of their way to help one another, but the fact is the number of people that an altruist helps is disproportional to the number of people helping that person, meaning that said person will always come up short, and the gain is generally not justified by it.

Dhampir, I don't know from what country you are. However, if we did not have altruism, perhaps we would not have soldiers. Maybe we would be living under dictatorship and not even have the opportunity to be discussing any of this right now.

 

My point exactly.Why would a person forgive someone who's incapable of accepting forgiveness? That is an assent to the actions taken against that person. Casting aside hate does not require forgiveness, moving on does not require forgiveness.

 

Dhampir, I suppose it is how you perceive forgiveness. IMO, it is NOT condoning or excusing a behavior. It is about understanding and letting go. It is a process that is worked out, usually using empathy concerning our perpetrator(s). It is about understanding how they could possibly come to do the things they did, perhaps understanding our own involvement in the situation too, which we did not see at the time. Maybe it's about looking at the situation as if from a third person perspective. Usually we will come to a conclusion of seeing our perpetrator as being the victim, which releases us from being the victim. I've seen some people that do not go throught this process, often become much like their perpetrator.

 

Martyrdom is nothing I would consider a virtue.

 

I'll respond to that last part later, I have to go to bed now.

Do you have a thankful feeling for the soldiers that came before you? How about people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Gay Rights advocates? Hey, I'm not saying that a real man named Jesus did all these things. I'm sure the story has been embellished and mythology has been super imposed here. I do think there was a natural man, just like you and I, that is at the core of this. He was a great social revolutionist for his times. Through the ages he has been immortalized... and obviously some have gone a little overboard.... to say the least.

 

Dhampir... hope you slept well. I can see you were up late too.

[Amanda]

Perhaps these should answer some of your questions

 

http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/hindu_trinity.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Nature_of_God

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/

 

Skeptic of the Bible, WOW... I didn't know I was going to take a class on it! I know you are a very detailed person and have researched things to a great degree... in categories of your interest. Further, I sense that you do try to be objective and honest in your assertions. Heck, I was just hoping I could get a super well informed 'summary' from you.

 

Skeptic of the Bible, yes... I am a bit surprised that even this amount of acknowledgement is made... however, as you even note here... it is NOT Jesus who is touting this claim... but of others. At best, he is substantiating their claim... however, not in a boastful way.

Err, if I ask you "Whether or not, you are the President of the US?" and if you yes, are substantiating my claim or impersonating someone that you are not.

 

Skeptic of the Bible, I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. I live in Florida, so I know a little about oranges, but not too much about apples. Let me share my perception on this matter. If I were a devout social revolutionist... if I were dedicated to helping those that I perceived are significantly discriminated on by the religous right and the government... if I was willing to be brave enough to risk my life for new values that I thought would change life for all those suffering... then I may stand up for the significance that, yes, I have come to dedicate my life for these people... to be their messiah. And yes, I am the son of God, as you too are the sons and daughters of the one God.. who is within us all and all in him/her/it.

 

In four Gospel Jesus is openly touted as the Jewish Messiah, there is no doubt about that

Yes, however it was by his actions... NOT by his words.

 

Having said all that, Skeptic of the Bible, I am not saying there is a real man that did all that. IDK. I use to give this man more credit than I do now. I'm willing to concede that these stories have probably been embellished, myths added, and yet... I think at the core is a real man, just as human as you and I. However, there do seem to be some principles that have values I respect today.

 

 

Asimov, please see definition of altruistic here.

 

Don't think I'm ignorning you Amanda...I'm moving to another province today, so I will get to it later!!!

 

Asimov, I'm sure I wouldn't be that lucky.

 

 

 

 

Hope your move goes extremely well, my friend.

[julian]

Hi Skeptic of the Bible! This is very interesting to me too! It says in the scripture that everything that was created was created by God and for God... therefore Satan, aka the destroyer, too. I think it is only the distroyer of the carnal nature, the ego. Please tell me how you see the symbolism of these entities in the Hindu perspectives.

 

Amanda, you're somewhat mistaken IMO. Shiva could not be further from "Satan". Destruction is a part of existence, endings lead to new beginnings, so it's not a negative thing (on the contrary, it is an extremely positive thing). I once heard a story from my middle school teacher about what happened in her class when the class' pet rabbit died; the western kids were in mourning, so sad that it had died, while the one Hindu kid was ecstatic, because the rabbit was going to be reincarnated and have a whole new life ahead of it. See the difference? Secondly, Kali is more of a destroyer of ego than Shiva.

 

I do know that Buddhism does acknowledge the power, the consciousness, and the divine rapture. May I ask, what are these aspects of God, and how do God and the universe differ? I thought that Hindus believed in Pantheism, therefore the Universe and God are the same, right?

 

OK, it can get very specific here but I'll try to keep it simple. Basically, everything is divine, everything is divinity. Therefore, everything is "god" and "god" is everything. That's the basic premise. Everything's soul, their ultimate body, their "self" is the essence of divinity, and it is eternal and undying.

 

So it's not "the universe and God are the same" as much as it is "the universe (and everything in it) IS god".

 

Does that explain it? I hope that helped.

 

Do you have a thankful feeling for the soldiers that came before you? How about people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Gay Rights advocates? Hey, I'm not saying that a real man named Jesus did all these things. I'm sure the story has been embellished and mythology has been super imposed here. I do think there was a natural man, just like you and I, that is at the core of this. He was a great social revolutionist for his times. Through the ages he has been immortalized... and obviously some have gone a little overboard.... to say the least.

 

Dhampir... hope you slept well. I can see you were up late too.

 

Why do you say Jesus was a "great social revolutionist"? We have very little evidence of him at all, and there is nothing to indicate he was waving the equivalent of a flag for social change. "Embellishment" is not an accurate term, I would prefer "largely made up and based on a myopic and ignorant mindset to start an ignorant and blind religion". The Nazarene was not "great" or anything of the sort, there is no reason to say so, and there is every reason to say the complete opposite and then some.

[NotBlinded]

 

Hi Dhampir! Of the two definitions, you find the second one evil. Please explain?

 

Hi Amanda...there was, at one time, not to long ago that I would have called myself an Objectivist. Here is what this website says about Altruism. Note it is listed under Evil Ethics.

 

 

"Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

 

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

 

"This is not to say that benevolence and good will are immoral. It is only sacrifice that is immoral, and being generally benevolent is not a sacrifice but a benefit and a virtue. The difference is that to be "good" according to Altruism, one must hand out blank checks to all who claim a need; while according to Egoism, ones own life is one's ultimate standard of value against which all acts must be analyzed."

 

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others - a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal..."

Ayn Rand, The Objectivist, June 1966

 

 

I can understand what they are saying and agree when looking at it from a selective viewpoint. I have changed some and now realize that Egoism might just be the worst of the two evils, IMO. It's not that I don't agree any more, it's that I don't agree 100%. While I can agree that we seek the most pleasure out of life, I don't agree that helping others can't bring us the most happiness. This is a matter of degree. One can't help so much that their lives are a living hell. There are boundries, IMO. Then we have someone that would give their lives for what they believe in order for others to be helped. I think this probably makes this person extremely happy to be able to do this, so here, is it Altruism or Egoism?

 

The rule of rescue people and firefighters, I think, is to not risk their own lives in order to save others. If they do, they can no longer save anyone else.

 

I can see both of these philosophies, but I don't see where there is a clear opposition between them.

 

Edit: Amanda, I just read you post about the soldiers. I just want to say a little on this and please note that I am not taking a stance on this, I just want to give a little of what I understand to both sides.

 

First, the Objectivist and Egoist might say that war is not beneficial to anyone. A stance of benevolence brings the most peace and happiness to the people involved.

 

Next, the Altruist might say that sacrifice is necessary for life to thrive and to bring peace. Everyone and everything dies. Why not die for a good cause (this is bringing the ego into Altruism)? Can you imagine a planet where nothing dies; where no sacrifice is made for the betterment of others?

 

Myself, I'm riding the fence. :-}

[Ouroboros]

Myself, I'm riding the fence. :-}

You evil fencists, always criticizing us taking-side-ists.

[Amanda]

Amanda, you're somewhat mistaken IMO. Shiva could not be further from "Satan". Destruction is a part of existence, endings lead to new beginnings, so it's not a negative thing (on the contrary, it is an extremely positive thing). I once heard a story from my middle school teacher about what happened in her class when the class' pet rabbit died; the western kids were in mourning, so sad that it had died, while the one Hindu kid was ecstatic, because the rabbit was going to be reincarnated and have a whole new life ahead of it. See the difference? Secondly, Kali is more of a destroyer of ego than Shiva.

Julian, oh... okay. Thank you... I did not know, and was just guessing. I think that Skeptic of the Bible is very familiar with Hinduism, and was interested in his/her insights. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and from now on, I hope you don't mind if I ask you too?

 

I see satan in the Bible as a distroyer, but a good one. He/she/it is like one that weeds the garden. If I am tempted and act on something that I shouldn't, let's say steal someone's purse so I can have drugs, then I will get the natural repercussions of those actions. Maybe nice people won't have anything to do with me, because they don't want a thief around them, or maybe I go to jail. Maybe my health will deteriorate, and my ability to keep my job decreases. Every time I do these kind of inappropriate things, I will keep on getting these negative repercussions till I don't do them any more. I can't be tempted to do something if it is not already in me. BTW, drugs and stealing are not amongst my many weaknesses.

 

BTW, I think the scriptures support something like reincarnation too.

 

OK, it can get very specific here but I'll try to keep it simple. Basically, everything is divine, everything is divinity. Therefore, everything is "god" and "god" is everything. That's the basic premise. Everything's soul, their ultimate body, their "self" is the essence of divinity, and it is eternal and undying.

 

So it's not "the universe and God are the same" as much as it is "the universe (and everything in it) IS god".

 

Does that explain it? I hope that helped.

I stand corrected.

 

Why do you say Jesus was a "great social revolutionist"? We have very little evidence of him at all, and there is nothing to indicate he was waving the equivalent of a flag for social change. "Embellishment" is not an accurate term, I would prefer "largely made up and based on a myopic and ignorant mindset to start an ignorant and blind religion". The Nazarene was not "great" or anything of the sort, there is no reason to say so, and there is every reason to say the complete opposite and then some.

 

Julian, I know... maybe Jesus didn't exist... maybe. I am just referring to the character portrayed of him in these teachings. Although, I personally do think there is a man at the core of all of this. I just happen to think there are some valid principles and values there, I find beneficial.

 

Jesus asserts that all should be humble, no one's better or worse than another; meek, to have one's strength under a gentle nature; and servant's disposition, in which we are to contribute to the solutions in the world instead of problems... if we can. He ends the concept that some are better than others, that just because people are sick or have disabilities they are the same as everyone else, and his fight is against the oppressive religous right and the government. However, if we just condemn the religous right and the government, then we're no better than they are. We can try to wake them up! IMO, the character of Jesus holds the same reasoning and feelings as most of those here, and would never be a traditional Christian today if he were real and here now. IMO, these fundamentalist of today are the same type of people he was fighting then.

[julian]

Julian, oh... okay. Thank you... I did not know, and was just guessing. I think that Skeptic of the Bible is very familiar with Hinduism, and was interested in his/her insights. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and from now on, I hope you don't mind if I ask you too?

 

No problem, I just hope I can explain it sufficiently.

 

I see satan in the Bible as a distroyer, but a good one. He/she/it is like one that weeds the garden. If I am tempted and act on something that I shouldn't, let's say steal someone's purse so I can have drugs, then I will get the natural repercussions of those actions. Maybe nice people won't have anything to do with me, because they don't want a thief around them, or maybe I go to jail. Maybe my health will deteriorate, and my ability to keep my job decreases. Every time I do these kind of inappropriate things, I will keep on getting these negative repercussions till I don't do them any more. I can't be tempted to do something if it is not already in me. BTW, drugs and stealing are not amongst my many weaknesses.

 

Look, you can see Satan for what you like, but I can't agree that such a view is backed up by the Bible. I think it's good that you're thinking out of the box, but don't claim that you're inside of it.

 

BTW, I think the scriptures support something like reincarnation too.

 

How so? See prior comments.

Julian, I know... maybe Jesus didn't exist... maybe. I am just referring to the character portrayed of him in these teachings. Although, I personally do think there is a man at the core of all of this. I just happen to think there are some valid principles and values there, I find beneficial.

 

Jesus asserts that all should be humble, no one's better or worse than another; meek, to have one's strength under a gentle nature; and servant's disposition, in which we are to contribute to the solutions in the world instead of problems... if we can. He ends the concept that some are better than others, that just because people are sick or have disabilities they are the same as everyone else, and his fight is against the oppressive religous right and the government. However, if we just condemn the religous right and the government, then we're no better than they are. We can try to wake them up! IMO, the character of Jesus holds the same reasoning and feelings as most of those here, and would never be a traditional Christian today if he were real and here now. IMO, these fundamentalist of today are the same type of people he was fighting then.

 

Jesus asserts that we must become his "sheep", so that is why you see adjectives such as "humble" and "meek". We need to surrender to a "god" for no reason, to give up thinking in favor of blind faith; this is the Christian equivalent of "humility".

 

Contribute to solutions?

 

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Corinthians 10:20-21

 

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matt 12:30

 

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

 

I think not.

 

Anyway, he does assert that people who accept him are better than others in quite a few ways, and his "pity" for others is out of a patronizing (to put it nicely) attitude. The character of Jesus would condemn us, that much is obvious. He claimed to be a "saviour", the "son of god", how is that not fundamentalist? All I'm asking is that you back up what you're saying.

[Amanda]

NBBTB... WOW! I've had so much to read on this thread!

 

While I can agree that we seek the most pleasure out of life, I don't agree that helping others can't bring us the most happiness. This is a matter of degree. One can't help so much that their lives are a living hell. There are boundries, IMO. Then we have someone that would give their lives for what they believe in order for others to be helped. I think this probably makes this person extremely happy to be able to do this, so here, is it Altruism or Egoism?

 

The rule of rescue people and firefighters, I think, is to not risk their own lives in order to save others. If they do, they can no longer save anyone else.

 

I can see both of these philosophies, but I don't see where there is a clear opposition between them.

 

Edit: Amanda, I just read you post about the soldiers. I just want to say a little on this and please note that I am not taking a stance on this, I just want to give a little of what I understand to both sides.

 

First, the Objectivist and Egoist might say that war is not beneficial to anyone. A stance of benevolence brings the most peace and happiness to the people involved.

 

Next, the Altruist might say that sacrifice is necessary for life to thrive and to bring peace. Everyone and everything dies. Why not die for a good cause (this is bringing the ego into Altruism)? Can you imagine a planet where nothing dies; where no sacrifice is made for the betterment of others?

 

Myself, I'm riding the fence. :-}

 

NBBTB, I hope I understand you. What I think is that you didn't understand me. I might not be specific enough in using the word altruistic, IDK. Maybe benevolence is better.

 

I think that if there is something that you see happening, individually or prolifically, that you find offensive in its disrespectful nature, even if it is not about you, and you stand in defense of honoring respect where it is deserved, what do you have to gain? Maybe we would leave complacency and have the opportunity to have real peace?

 

IMO, we are not to be a doormat, nor an enabler of a dysfunctional mentality... as that by definition would be to sacrifice self to progress a wicked cause, wouldn't it? I agree that war is NOT the answer. However, as the Suffis say, to recognize good and evil is elementary. Sometimes its a matter of choosing the worse of the two evils. They say that if your enemy comes by you and you kill him, you are guilty of killing one person. Yet, if your enemy comes by you and you do nothing, then he kills 150 people, how many deaths are you responsible for then? Maybe sometimes we have to risk our life and fight for a cause so that the least amount of people suffer?

[Amanda]

Look, you can see Satan for what you like, but I can't agree that such a view is backed up by the Bible. I think it's good that you're thinking out of the box, but don't claim that you're inside of it.

Julian, I love your way with words... yet, you get your point across.

 

(The messages I've interpreted are more like Tibetan Buddhist's beliefs, IMO.)

 

Everything that was created was created by God and for God. Hence Satan too.

 

Romans 13:1

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God *: the powers that be are ordained of God.

 

Man was made from the dust, the flesh, the carnal nature, and God blew his spirit into them. Then Satan was to eat of the dust/flesh/carnal nature all the days of his life, preserving the spirit.

 

Isaiah 54:16

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

 

1 Corinthians 5:5

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

BTW, I think the scriptures support something like reincarnation too.

 

How so? See prior comments.

Here's a couple...

 

Ecclesiastes 1

1:9

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

1:10

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

1:11

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

 

Hebrews 11:40

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

 

Contribute to solutions?

 

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Corinthians 10:20-21

 

How about the second one from those?

 

1 Corinthians 10:23

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

 

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matt 12:30

 

This is just saying that in accordance to these teachings, if we do not unify, reconcile with each other instead of being selfish, then we will be scattered.

 

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

 

These teachings are metaphorically speaking. This is just saying that if there are those against unifying, then bring them there, and once they hear it from him, they will no longer be his enemy but a follower. How many people do his disciples kill, literally?

 

Anyway, he does assert that people who accept him are better than others in quite a few ways, and his "pity" for others is out of a patronizing (to put it nicely) attitude. The character of Jesus would condemn us, that much is obvious. He claimed to be a "saviour", the "son of god", how is that not fundamentalist? All I'm asking is that you back up what you're saying.

He acknowledged his mission was to save the people from their oppression with principles to live. Heaven and hell are just states of mind, and the one that wins is the side we feed the most. His work and followers were much like people on this site. Others feel like me too... see this site here. Not that I agree with it entirely, but that it sees Jesus against the Christian mentality.

[Dhampir]

Regarding altruism, I think that NBBTL made my point quite well, concerning the difference between benevolence and that concept, so I won't go further into that.

 

It is about understanding and letting go. It is a process that is worked out, usually using empathy concerning our perpetrator(s).

Y'know, I thought about a rape victim saying the words 'I forgive you' while she was still gittin' twisted out by her assailant, and the thought filled me with such rage that I know my argument is valid beyond simple opinion: You can't forgive someone until you are ready to let go. It is the very end of the process, not a part of it, and it doesn't always follow that process because it isn't necessary. It's more of a grace in the mind of the forgiver than anything, because it is dropping the score without settling it, and it is more than possible to be completely neutral (as opposed to hateful and resentul) and unforgiving. Again, I would know. On the other hand, sometimes the score needs to be settled, and what's wrong with that? And why does their possibly being a victim of sorts act as an extenuating circumstance? If that's not absolving the perpetrator of culpability I don't know what is.

 

As to martyrdom, there are of course people who've died or been imprisoned, tortured, or whatever else would constitute martyrdom, for the causes they felt worthy of it. And under the circumstances those causes were probably worth it. But one can't be a martyr until the act is done, and my problem is with those who, while willing to die or what have you, don't go out of their way not to. It is not a virtue.

 

 

About god, simply put, the definition is not relevant, because nowhere in the definition of 'human' is the word god.

[julian]

Hey Amanda. I can't seem to work this quote thing, so I just did it with bolds instead. I hope it's legible.

 

Also, thanks for the compliment. You write very well and you've displayed a great amount of patience (and the like) in this thread and in others.

 

Julian, I love your way with words... yet, you get your point across.

 

(The messages I've interpreted are more like Tibetan Buddhist's beliefs, IMO.)

 

Everything that was created was created by God and for God. Hence Satan too.

 

Romans 13:1

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God *: the powers that be are ordained of God.

 

Man was made from the dust, the flesh, the carnal nature, and God blew his spirit into them. Then Satan was to eat of the dust/flesh/carnal nature all the days of his life, preserving the spirit.

 

Of course Satan was supposedly created by "God", and he was supposedly supposed to serve "God". However, he supposedly rebelled, and went to "Hell", which is referred to the Bible as a place devoid of "God". At every turn of the page, this place is where people who merely disagree with the Bible go (or those who aren't "saved"), while people who believe in the Bible supposedly go to heaven (in spite of sin, according to the Bible).

 

Isaiah 54:16

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

 

How does that suggest Satan is a redeeming, cleansing force? How?

 

1 Corinthians 5:5

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

This doesn't help your argument either. All it says is that "evil" destroys a body but "god" can save the soul, so you have to put blind faith in Christian delusion.

 

Here's a couple...

 

Ecclesiastes 1

1:9

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

 

On this specific point:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/new.html

 

1:10

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

 

1:11

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

 

You are very much misled IMO. Look at the passages together, and look at their conclusion.

 

"And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

 

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." (1:13-14)

 

What the author is saying is that "wisdom" is meaningless. Not only does he arrogantly assert that he has seen everything, he claims that they are worthless, so you should have blind and delusional faith. Again, you are missing the entire point of these passages.

 

Hebrews 11:40

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

 

The thing supposedly provided is "heaven", no? That seems to be all. What do you think this shows?

 

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Corinthians 10:20-21

 

How about the second one from those?

 

1 Corinthians 10:23

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

 

OK, you clearly ignored the first part. Secondly, the author claims "all things edify not", which means that other things are not as "spiritually beneficial" as his religion, which means a myopic attitude and an ignorant mindset.

 

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matt 12:30

 

This is just saying that in accordance to these teachings, if we do not unify, reconcile with each other instead of being selfish, then we will be scattered.

 

Right, because "(he) is against me" is so neutral and accepting...

 

It doesn't mean "reconcile", it means "accept what I say or else".

 

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

 

These teachings are metaphorically speaking. This is just saying that if there are those against unifying, then bring them there, and once they hear it from him, they will no longer be his enemy but a follower. How many people do his disciples kill, literally?

 

Just read what it says. He says he will have his enemies slain in front of him. While you insist that it means people should "unify", the passage itself shows that it is about intolerance. By the way, "his disciples" have killed countless people.

 

Anyway, he does assert that people who accept him are better than others in quite a few ways, and his "pity" for others is out of a patronizing (to put it nicely) attitude. The character of Jesus would condemn us, that much is obvious. He claimed to be a "saviour", the "son of god", how is that not fundamentalist? All I'm asking is that you back up what you're saying.

 

He acknowledged his mission was to save the people from their oppression with principles to live. Heaven and hell are just states of mind, and the one that wins is the side we feed the most. His work and followers were much like people on this site. Others feel like me too... see this site here. Not that I agree with it entirely, but that it sees Jesus against the Christian mentality.

 

Save people from their oppression? He supposedly came to save the people who accept him while damning those who don't. He supposedly came to "save" us from a nonexistent force, to "lead" us to a nonexistent destination, to "spread" nonexistent teachings. The Bible, along with the Judeo-Christian mindset, most decidedly shows the notion that heaven and hell are destinations for people who either blindly believe in such nonsense and people who do not. Claiming otherwise without support is in defiance of the entire dogma, the entire mindset, the entire thought-process, the background, the scriptures and more.

 

Again, "the side that wins is the side we feed the most" is a Native American saying. I consider it dishonest to apply it to Christianity, especially when Christianity is not only diametrically opposed to such belief systems, but has also endlessly tried to extinguish it.