mymistake Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 In terms of the scriptures, these were validated by Jesus, who proved his authority to do so by raising himself from the dead. The new testament in particular is brought to us from Jesus, recollected through the Paraclete and written by the apostles, men personally commissioned by God in the flesh to speak his word. You believe what is not true. There is no evidence to support your belief. There is strong evidence that your belief is false. Thus you have deluded yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnacleben Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 To me, the gospel is a myth full of bad news. Thankfully it's not real. The euangelion simply means good news/amazing tidings. It's simply an anouncement. Augustus would distribute euangelions whenever something good happened that he wanted to announce. If you were explaining to students what Xians consider their gospel to be, how would you explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 barnacleben, Are you a Christian or a Xian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 It's all fairy tale mythology to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 As for the confessions, I do not hold to the Papist view that churchmen and their councils are infallible, or even good. However, in contrast to both the papists and later protestants, the Lutheran reformers truly sought to confess what scripture teaches, no matter how garrishly counter to human reason and philosophy. Unfortunately for Christianity, we see where it got the reformers- Lutheran or otherwise. We still have a divided Christianity with not just a few denominations as in the days of the reformation, but hundreds or thousands. I would rephrase that statement to read" "truly sought to confess what THEY THOUGHT scripture teaches" Roman Catholics would surely disagree about the primacy of scripture at the expense of tradition. The fact is, the scriptures are open to everyone's interpretation, unless you have a central authority to interpret it for you. If you have a priesthood of believers, then you have no need for priests, in fact, no need for authorities of any kind, including pastors. Why the hell even go to church then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 12, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 In terms of the scriptures, these were validated by Jesus, who proved his authority to do so by raising himself from the dead. There is no evidence to support the validity this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If you were explaining to students what Xians consider their gospel to be, how would you explain it? An all knowing, all powerful God who decides what is good created the garden of eden where Adam and Eve sinned altering all of creation and dooming everyone to eternal punishment - even those who just inherit original sin but do nothing else to offend God. The only way God could forgive people was to send one of God's persons, God the Son, to Earth to live like a human and then die for a few days. So God the Son did all that and now anybody who says the sinner's prayer and believes is given the "free gift" of salvation. Then out of gratitude for all that God has done the new Christian will submit their lives to God to be made into a new person. Good news - you don't have to experience God's eternal wrath! There are, of course, slight variations in the theology across all the sects and denominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If you were explaining to students what Xians consider their gospel to be, how would you explain it? An all knowing, all powerful God .. doom[ed] everyone to eternal punishment ... God the Son, die[d] for a few days ... and now anybody who says the sinner's prayer and believes [this bullshit] is given the "free gift" of salvation ... Good news - you don't have to experience God's eternal wrath! [that you didn't earn or deserve in the first place.] There are, of course, slight variations in the theology across all the sects and denominations. Good summary! (I hope you don't mind my condensing yet expounding on it.) I especially like how you got the inherent contradiction in there at the very start, though I doubt the average believer (no matter what sect they belong to, whether it be Christian or Xian, Ben) knows what it is. Speaking of which, it is truly amazing just how many thousands of "slight variations" have arisen over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 As for the confessions, I do not hold to the Papist view that churchmen and their councils are infallible, or even good. However, in contrast to both the papists and later protestants, the Lutheran reformers truly sought to confess what scripture teaches, no matter how garrishly counter to human reason and philosophy. Unfortunately for Christianity, we see where it got the reformers- Lutheran or otherwise. We still have a divided Christianity with not just a few denominations as in the days of the reformation, but hundreds or thousands. I would rephrase that statement to read" "truly sought to confess what THEY THOUGHT scripture teaches" Roman Catholics would surely disagree about the primacy of scripture at the expense of tradition. The fact is, the scriptures are open to everyone's interpretation, unless you have a central authority to interpret it for you. If you have a priesthood of believers, then you have no need for priests, in fact, no need for authorities of any kind, including pastors. Why the hell even go to church then? well heck you can see the division even before the catholics and the council of Nicea they were literally all over the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Agreed. I gave Ben what he perceives as the "right" answer. But to me the gospel is bad news. It goes something like this, "Some bearded, effeminate European guy showed up 2000 years ago, said some things, started a religion, and got attached to a stick. If you don't convert to this person's European religion, there is a place called hell where you will go when you die to be tormented by God for all eternity." That's not good news. It's the worst news ever. I thank God daily that Jesus is a false god and a liar. Bhim, I don't get why you say "effeminate" and "European". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 When I left church behind, I left behind an artificial, hypocritical, happy-clappy nightmare of guilt, shame, and despair. This was no bride of Christ, but a decrepit, diseased, whoring witch on her 200th plastic surgery. She wasn't even as noble as a real whore. A real whore takes money, but she wasn't taking money, no. Instead she's like a desperate wizened nymphomaniac adulterous, paying all her money on gigolos, and not clean ones either, but unwashed AIDS-ridden park junkies, whose members oozed from open sores. It was very hard for me when I first heard the gospel. The gospel was so counter to what I'd learned in church for decades, I felt like I couldn't even comprehend it. I was so angry. What is the gospel? I strongly recommend that you knock it off with the "whore" talk. You are not going to like your visit if you get off to a bad start. To answer your question the gospel is a scam. It's a way to control people by fooling them. So true, but did barnacleben ever tell us what the gospel he heard is? We know it was different from what he heard in the happy clappy church, but how is it different? I mean, he can't tell us that he heard the gospel and then ask us what is the gospel is at the same time, can he? Am I missing something (besides that) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeker001 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 'snip For one thing, Mohammed was convinced for some time that the spirits speaking to him in his cave were djinn, before he decided they were angels. Secondly, St. Paul warned believers to condemn even angels that came bearing a distorted gospel. But to phrase it more generically, why not John Adams? In terms of the scriptures, these were validated by Jesus, who proved his authority to do so by raising himself from the dead. The new testament in particular is brought to us from Jesus, recollected through the Paraclete and written by the apostles, men personally commissioned by God in the flesh to speak his word. As for the confessions, I do not hold to the Papist view that churchmen and their councils are infallible, or even good. However, in contrast to both the papists and later protestants, the Lutheran reformers truly sought to confess what scripture teaches, no matter how garrishly counter to human reason and philosophy. Doubt is an interesting thing. Check out this ted talk here http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith.html Doubt is actually a beautiful thing, it is a sign of ones intelligence and sincerity to acknowledge tha one might now have all the answers and therefore provide to seek the truth "Abolish all doubt and what's left is not faith, but absolute heartless conviction. You are certain you possess The Truth (inevitably offered with an implied uppercase "T") and this certainty quickly devolves into dogmatism and righteousness...by which I mean a demonstrative overweening pride in being so VERY right. In short, the arrogance of fundamentalism." !~ Lesley Hazleton There can be no rationality without doubt and the willingness to admit you are wrong. Mohammad holding doubt that he was visited by a divine being as Hazleton pointed out was the only rational, human reaction. But the fundamentalists of the Muslim religion want to hide his doubt, and want no record left of it. To them they only care about the what, they hold no sincerity to the deeper truth because they hold the "Truth." Instead they are content with whitewashing history to a view that they are the most comfortable with. Instead of entertaining the idea that he really might be crazy. How can you be so certain that what is presented in the bible is the truth? How can you be sure that your interpretation is correct? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 To me, the gospel is a myth full of bad news. Thankfully it's not real. The euangelion simply means good news/amazing tidings. It's simply an anouncement. Augustus would distribute euangelions whenever something good happened that he wanted to announce. If you were explaining to students what Xians consider their gospel to be, how would you explain it? Beyond vague, incomplete and if hell is involved, horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Bhim, I don't get why you say "effeminate" and "European". Both words are rhetorical tools, but let me explain. I harp on Jesus being effectively European for the following reason. Modern evangelical Christianity portrays itself as a universal religion for the entire world. That's how evangelicals justify going to non-white cultures and preaching Jesus to them. That's also how I, for a time, convinced myself that I wasn't emulating a culture other than my own by being an evangelical Christian. Evangelicals don't want to associate Christianity with European culture because it calls to mind imagry of colonialism and other evils, and this makes Jesus not very attractive to us non-Europeans. My aim here is to show that Christianity and Western European culture are inextricably bound. Christianity is well and good if you identify with Western European culture. But if you don't, you ought not convert to Christianity. I'm hoping to perhaps show evangelicals how destructive and anti-family values it is to preach Jesus to people who belong to other religions. As for the claim of effeminacy, this one is more direct. Popular images of Jesus portray him with long hair and generally soft features. Basically he's girly. A lot of popular Reformed theologians these days (e.g. Mark Driscoll) try to downplay this or even paint a new picture of a more masculine Jesus. But the uncomfortable fact for Christians is that Jesus is a highly homoerotic figure. I honestly mean no offense to our gay friends here. But as a male who values his masculinity, I feel that worshiping Jesus borders on participating in a homosexual relationship, and that's not something I want to do. No straight male should have a "relationship" with Jesus. On the other hand, no gay male should either, since he'll send them to hell anyway. Hope that helps explain what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The euangelion simply means good news/amazing tidings. It's simply an anouncement. Augustus would distribute euangelions whenever something good happened that he wanted to announce. If you were explaining to students what Xians consider their gospel to be, how would you explain it? Ben, still waiting on your response to my take on the gospel. You said you don't want to be confusing, but so far you've been asking a lot of questions and not answering many. So I'm going to ask you a direct set of questions, and I'd appreciate if you simply answer as directly as possible. I'm OK with lengthy explanations. But please don't veil your beliefs in parables as your savior does. If you check a certain other thread on this forum, you'll find that I don't have many kind words (about Jesus) stored up for Christians who intentionally obfuscate. And unlike other Christians I've encountered here, I hope you believe, as I do, that one ought not to be ambiguous about one's religious beliefs, especially when there are no threats of recrimination. First, how do you define the gospel? Second, what would you like us to do about the gospel? Are you looking for us to convert? Are you merely seeking mutual understanding? What exactly is your goal here? Third, do you hold to the belief that people who fail to convert to Christianity are punished in an eternal hell? That, after all, is the basis of my objection to the gospel of Jesus, which is why I'm asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Origin: Old English gōdspel, from gōd 'good' + spel 'news, a story' (see spell2), translating ecclesiastical Latin bona annuntiatio or bonus nuntius, used to gloss ecclesiastical Latin evangelium, from Greek euangelion 'good news' (see evangel); after the vowel was shortened in Old English, the first syllable was mistaken for god 'God' I remember reading somewhere that 'gospel' was a compound word made up of 'gho' or 'ghost' meaning 'spirit' and the word 'spell' meaning 'enchantment' or 'enchanting' -- but I can't seem to find that info at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 To my recollection the good news was the kingdom (or a variation of this). It's what the synoptics have "jesus" running around talking about (ie. the gospel of the kingdom of god). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 As a Pentecostal, we were taught that the 'good news' was jesus dying a horrible death on the cross to save us from our sins and unworthiness.. The 'sins' that jesus's 'father' bestowed on us in the first place. Then if we didn't accept jesus, we were doomed to burn in hell forever. It's all 'good news'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 In terms of the scriptures, these were validated by Jesus, who proved his authority to do so by raising himself from the dead. The new testament in particular is brought to us from Jesus, recollected through the Paraclete and written by the apostles, men personally commissioned by God in the flesh to speak his word. According to scripture, Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead, God did. I'm not sure how you know that the New Testament is valid when it contradicts the Old Testament, which outlines a completely different system for salvation. The New Testament can't even agree with itself and a large chunk of it was written by a Jewish apostate who never met Jesus except in visions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 12, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 I believe what we have here is a classic True Christian who thinks the scholars and denominations all got it wrong. Honestly, if someone ever rose from the dead I would listen to what he had to say. So far, there is no evidence that anyone has done that. Mythological characters and others in popular fiction do that frequently, but real life is a bitch when it comes to magic and super powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I believe what we have here is a classic True Christian who thinks the scholars and denominations all got it wrong. Honestly, if someone ever rose from the dead I would listen to what he had to say. So far, there is no evidence that anyone has done that. Mythological characters and others in popular fiction do that frequently, but real life is a bitch when it comes to magic and super powers. I was that guy when I started deconverting >.< after I realized the contradictions and piss poor translations. I was convinced we were living in the time of the final church of revelation and our current texts were read from by luke warm scholars. Then I actually did some more reading and realized painfully and eventually that it is all just bull honky and should be disregarded as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I'm thinking the Christian realized he got in over his head here... Rational people cannot honestly contend their faith is true for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 John 3:16: "For God so loved the world...." If god loved the world why did he condemn all humanity to eternal torture before they ( except for Adam and Eve) committed any sin? Why did he create the human race knowing when he created them that he would send the vast majority of them to eternal torture? Why was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil allowed to be in the Garden of Eden? Why was Satan? Why did god not simply obliterate sin before he created humans? Why does god play childish games with deadly consequences? Has any Xtian ever answered the above questions in a sensible way? biii 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 John 3:16: "For God so loved the world...." If god loved the world why did he condemn all humanity to eternal torture before they ( except for Adam and Eve) committed any sin? Why did he create the human race knowing when he created them that he would send the vast majority of them to eternal torture? Why was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil allowed to be in the Garden of Eden? Why was Satan? Why did god not simply obliterate sin before he created humans? Why does god play childish games with deadly consequences? Has any Xtian ever answered the above questions in a sensible way? biii I speculated once that He was looking for a true friend/companionship. Edit: He ran into the same sheeit that the rest of us men has run into. Eve, the prototype of what He wished was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 John 3:16: "For God so loved the world...." If god loved the world why did he condemn all humanity to eternal torture before they ( except for Adam and Eve) committed any sin? Why did he create the human race knowing when he created them that he would send the vast majority of them to eternal torture? Why was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil allowed to be in the Garden of Eden? Why was Satan? Why did god not simply obliterate sin before he created humans? Why does god play childish games with deadly consequences? Has any Xtian ever answered the above questions in a sensible way? biii I speculated once that He was looking for a true friend/companionship. Edit: He ran into the same sheeit that the rest of us men has run into. Eve, the prototype of what He wished was different. God doesn't have to "look." He knows everything, remember? The magnitudes of incriminating complications this places on God's character are far too great to look past... Unless you're a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts