Easter: The Holiday so many Christians get wrong

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Lefty said:

Mcnugget cheeseburger? That's genius!

I'd call it divinely inspired. 

[LogicalFallacy]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd call it divinely inspired. 

 

That would also make you a prophet!

 

Now you just need to turn it into a profit  

[mwc]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I saw Spider-Man chasing Lex Luther in the Batmobile.  He was using the Elder wand to summon the power of the Dark Side.  I was eating a cheeseburger made out of chicken mcnuggets at the time.

 

It's all true, despite the glaring inconsistencies.

     Perhaps.  But I was more thinking about something along the lines of Istanbul.  If we weren't aware of all of its names, they being lost to us, and two people mentioned two cities, who were aware, but it wound up they were the same place after all.  I don't think this is the case in the gospels but I think this is the apology.  So it amounts to creating an inconsistency, to make the report legit, but it's not an actual inconsistency but a lack of knowledge on our part.  Having your cake and eating it too.

 

          mwc

 

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, Jojo said:

Use of interpretation and opinions is what confuses many about Christianity today.
Has Christianity not been controlled and "taught" by thousands of false preachers for hundreds and hundreds of years to what it has become today therefore much of what most have learned/experienced is that false presentation of the Bible.
I don't blame any of you for how you may feel or what you've learned and experienced with what Christianity and the Bible (taught by false preachers) is and what it's become. It's not surprising that I'd be thrown into the same category because you may have "heard it all before" but have those past preachers and religions base everything strictly off the Bible without their own interpretations and opinions? We're you able to ask and receive answers from these preachers and priests regarding the Bible?

 

Any comments on psalm 148:7?

 

"Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps "

 

The bible mentions dragons a number of times. Are there dragons?

 

Oh, nvm. LF already covered dragons. How about talking donkeys? Do we have those in reality? If not, then what the hell is the bible talking about?

[Lefty]

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Any comments on psalm 148:7?

 

"Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps "

 

The bible mentions dragons a number of times. Are there dragons?

 

Oh, nvm. LF already covered dragons. How about talking donkeys? Do we have those in reality? If not, then what the hell is the bible talking about?

 

LOL, depends on which bible!

 

Some mention leviathans as well, whatever that is.

 

But talking donkeys? All I know is if you do enough of the right drug you'll see a lot of shit that may or may not be there!

[TABA]

On 3/13/2019 at 1:02 PM, Jojo said:

 

 

I'm simply a member of the Church of Christ. We are Christian and don't believe in the Trinity. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Matt. 3:17) and that Christ is a man and not God or a God-Man as Christ stated himself (John 8:40) as well as the Apostles (1 Tim. 2:5; Matt. 1:18). 

 

We're not a denomination, cult or sect and do not follow this Nicene Creed you mentioned. This is a religion that worships the Almighty God strictly based on His teachings recorded in the Bible with no opinions involved.

No problem, didn't take it as being taken apart and I hope this answers your question.

 

Hi Jojo!  I was a member of the Church of Christ for almost 25 years before deconverting within the past five years.   Although I was raised Catholic, in my twenties - even as I started to drift toward unbelief - I learned about the Restoration Movement of the early 19th Century.  The idea of stripping away all human additions and selective interpretations and to let the Bible speak for itself really appealed to me.  The Restorationists, like others before them and since, sincerely believed that Scripture would make all things clear if only it were given the chance.  Unfortunately they were wrong.  Scripture speaks with a forked tongue.  It shows us different and incompatible pictures of ‘God’.  It shows the evolution of theism from the polytheism of the early Old Testament to the monotheism of the post-Babylon period.  You can see the evolution of both Hell and Satan all the way through from Genesis to Revelation.  And many theists’ picture of Hell comes not from scripture at all but from the medieval Dante’s Inferno.  The New Testament can't even agree with itself as to whether Jesus is going to return in the lifetime of the writers.  The fact that you and @Christforums have such sharp but sincerely held differences on important aspects of Christianity speaks volumes.  I was attracted to the Church of Christ because I wanted to know the truth.  I gradually realized, but only lately admitted, that the truth is that scriptures are human beings’ attempts to make sense of the world and all that is in it, nothing more, nothing less.  They got some things right about human nature: there is wisdom among the pages of scripture.  So I’d say to the Restorationists: you tried, you really did, but it just doesn’t add up.  The Bible is evidently no more the word of God than the Quran or any other holy book.  And letting the Bible ‘speak for itself’ gets you the plethora of denominations that emerged after the Vatican lost its monopoly on interpretation and people were able to read it for themselves.  The Reformation created more confusion than the ‘Lord’ did at the Tower of Babel.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, mwc said:

     Perhaps.  But I was more thinking about something along the lines of Istanbul.  If we weren't aware of all of its names, they being lost to us, and two people mentioned two cities, who were aware, but it wound up they were the same place after all.  I don't think this is the case in the gospels but I think this is the apology.  So it amounts to creating an inconsistency, to make the report legit, but it's not an actual inconsistency but a lack of knowledge on our part.  Having your cake and eating it too.

 

          mwc

 

I don't know anything about Istanbul; but here's a nice picture of me and Redneck Jr. in Constantinople:

 

[TABA]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't know anything about Istanbul; but here's a nice picture of me and Redneck Jr. in Constantinople:

 

 

Hmmm...  I had you pictured as an Old Fart, yelling at kids to get off his lawn...

 

[mwc]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't know anything about Istanbul; but here's a nice picture of me and Redneck Jr. in Constantinople:

 

     Nice.  But, maybe you would have been happier in Istanbul?

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, TABA said:

 

Hmmm...  I had you pictured as an Old Fart, yelling at kids to get off his lawn...

 

 

So did I! That’s hilarious. What are you younger than me redneck? I’m 42. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     Nice.  But, maybe you would have been happier in Istanbul?

 

          mwc

 

That's open to interpretation. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To be fair, that photo was from summer of 2012.

[mwc]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's open to interpretation. 

     I guess so.  Maybe I can't read this expression:  

 

          mwc

 

[florduh]

That's nobody's business but the Turks.

[Astreja]

I celebrate Easter the way it should be celebrated -- as an astronomical event, on the vernal equinox instead of some daft formula involving full moons and Sundays, and with egregious excesses of chocolate.

 

(It's only fair, as it's My holiday anyway.  How are you gentlemen!!  All your Easter are belong to us.)  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So did I! That’s hilarious. What are you younger than me redneck? I’m 42. 

It depends on whether you use a literal interpretation of age or take a reformist view.  Literally, I'm a few years older than you (45).  But, if it's true that you're only as old as you feel/act/think, then my age varies from day to day.

 

If only there were some clear revelation...

[Joshpantera]

On 3/12/2019 at 8:14 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Person in a cult asks another person in a cult which cult he belongs to 

 

Both deny that they're in a cult....

[midniterider]

maybe a thread on what a cult is and why christianity falls into that category?

[wellnamed]

"Christianity" is too broad to be a cult, IMO. I think we like to apply terms like cult by analogy where what we really mean is something like "cults are bad, and <this> is bad, so therefore <this> is like a cult". And there might be some legitimate points of analogy between whatever <this> is and actual cults. But I'm not sure it's that useful to stretch the term to be broad enough to apply to an entire world religion with a billion adherents. Individual sects or groups can be cults. The religion as a whole can encourage certain modes of thinking which share features in common with the modes of thinking encouraged by cults. But cults have other features (charismatic leadership, tight social control of specific groups of people) that won't apply to a religion as a whole.

 

But LF was just making a good joke about William's use of the word "cult"

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, wellnamed said:

"Christianity" is too broad to be a cult, IMO. I think we like to apply terms like cult by analogy where what we really mean is something like "cults are bad, and <this> is bad, so therefore <this> is like a cult". And there might be some legitimate points of analogy between whatever <this> is and actual cults. But I'm not sure it's that useful to stretch the term to be broad enough to apply to an entire world religion with a billion adherents. Individual sects or groups can be cults. The religion as a whole can encourage certain modes of thinking which share features in common with the modes of thinking encouraged by cults. But cults have other features (charismatic leadership, tight social control of specific groups of people) that won't apply to a religion as a whole.

 

But LF was just making a good joke about William's use of the word "cult"

 

 

 

I suppose if it gets big enough , it cant really be a cult. I agree we like to use the word cult as a pejorative.

[mwc]

     A religion is a cult that won.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

These denominationalist's act as cults, basically. Competitive cults at that. Kettle's calling the pot black and such. Assuming mythology is true as their foundation. And then formulating an apriori dichotomy between a god and humanity. "Oh no, that's MAN's way. This other way is gods way!' 

 

I hope people reading along can see the errors in logic, reasoning and judgement that go into these forms of deluded thinking. Which then lead to the in house fighting observed between christian cults or factions if you will. It all starts from the faulty foundations and spans out from there. It's been said that everything pretty much boils down to assumptions. The fact is that there's no good evidence nor reason to pre-assume a god in the first place. Until there is, it's much more probable that there is only humanity and no such dichotomy between a god and humanity even exists to begin with. Reading through this thread with that in mind tends to highlight the nonsensical nature of the discussion. 

 

It's like two Star Wars fans arguing about the movie transcription while each one taking the transcript (scriptures) in different ways. Or one taking it literally and another not so much. Regardless of who's right or wrong about the movie transcript (scriptures), the transcript (scriptures) is obvious fiction all the same. So what does it actually matter then? A fiction, or mythology, can be taken however people like taking it in the end. It doesn't even matter what the original fiction (scripture) writers thought or meant. It changes and adapts over the years, with editions and subtractions and it evolves. All very pointless rabble when you take the raw facts into consideration. 

 

 

[mwc]

On 3/22/2019 at 1:20 PM, Joshpantera said:

It's like two Star Wars fans arguing about the movie transcription while each one taking the transcript (scriptures) in different ways. Or one taking it literally and another not so much. Regardless of who's right or wrong about the movie transcript (scriptures), the transcript (scriptures) is obvious fiction all the same. So what does it actually matter then? A fiction, or mythology, can be taken however people like taking it in the end. It doesn't even matter what the original fiction (scripture) writers thought or meant. It changes and adapts over the years, with editions and subtractions and it evolves. All very pointless rabble when you take the raw facts into consideration. 

 

 

     I'd argue that nothing ultimately matters but somethings are a little more fun than others along the way.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 5:10 PM, mwc said:

     A religion is a cult that won.

 

          mwc

 

 

And this is so true isn't it.

 

Think about it. Christianity - the claim entirely rests on Jesus. Islam - Mohammad. Mormons, J Smith. Scientology - L Ron Hubbard.

 

Heck you could even claim that Judaism is a cult based on the fictional character of Moses. They all hark back to the great prophet. As Moses said, as Moses blah blah.

 

Then within cults turned religions further cults appear and some of these become religions in themselves.

 

Of course the caveat needs to be made that not all cults are equal, like not all religions are bad in the same way or to the same degree.

[wellnamed]

I think there's a lot of truth to that statement: "A religion is a cult that won". But it's interesting to think about what winning means. You hit on part of it: winning means lasting long enough to where the founders (e.g. charismatic cult leaders?) no longer matter as much as ongoing cultural development within the group. A great modern example is the LDS church. It definitely began as a cult by typical standards. Even by religious standards there are some pretty weird ideas in their sacred texts written by Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. I wouldn't argue with folks (especially ex-Mormons) who would still find it to be pretty cult-like. But there's also no doubt it's changed a lot in 150 years or however long it's been, and it's grown to such an extent that it's not really a cult in the same way that it was. Religions are dynamic because they are invented by people (rather than being the immutable revelation of a perfect being): they don't remain what they were at the beginning. But it's a good observation that the seeds of most world religions seem to require some cult-like aspects, particularly charismatic leadership. Although they may also require other interesting cultural factors as well...