Christianity, not Paulinism

[Bluth Corporation]

Indeed it is. You'll note I said above:


"Archaeological evidence" should of course be added to that list.

Yes, which is what makes Mount Shavano's initial claim about the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of Alexander the Great being the same rather silly, don't you think?

Depends on how you interpret it, I suppose.

Quantitatively, they're not that comparable. Qualitatively, they are. You'll notice that the main thrust of Aesthetica's response to Mount Shavano (at least, as it seemed to me) indicated that there was an abundance of firsthand historical evidence that survives to the present, which there simply isn't.

[Aesthetica]

You claim there is reliable contemporary evidence, share it...

To my knowledge, there isn't any contemporary evidence that survives. Just like, to my knowledge, there isn't any of Alexander. Which is why I said that the evidence is "not direct," and that it merely "establishes a probability" of his existence rather than saying "he definitely did...exist."

So whats this indirect evidence, remembering of course that all Paulianty (translation for non Blutherites Christianity) based literature is off limits as its part of the cults propaganda, what independant indirect evidence is there for a jesus

[Aesthetica]

Yes, which is what makes Mount Shavano's initial claim about the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of Alexander the Great being the same rather silly, don't you think?

Depends on how you interpret it, I suppose.

Quantitatively, they're not that comparable. Qualitatively, they are. You'll notice that the main thrust of Aesthetica's response to Mount Shavano (at least, as it seemed to me) indicated that there was an abundance of firsthand historical evidence that survives to the present, which there simply isn't.

That's because I'm not an Ivory Tower Pseudo-Intellectual in training, and thus did NOT forget such minor matters as Archaeological evidence as it is also historical...

[Volnotova]

So far, a majority of this thread has been semantics.

This is also a problem with the world's major religions.

Look at this thread, multiple people disagreeing with each other; all claiming to have the universal truth.

The amount of contradicting "evidence" and arguments is furstrating beyond words.

Who am I to believe?

[Conserative Morality]

So far, a majority of this thread has been semantics.

This is also a problem with the world's major religions.

Look at this thread, multiple people disagreeing with each other; all claiming to have the universal truth.

The amount of contradicting "evidence" and arguments is furstrating beyond words.

Who am I to believe?

Me. I am God. Bow before me.

[Aesthetica]

So far, a majority of this thread has been semantics.

This is also a problem with the world's major religions.

Look at this thread, multiple people disagreeing with each other; all claiming to have the universal truth.

The amount of contradicting "evidence" and arguments is furstrating beyond words.

Who am I to believe?

There is no "universal truth", so follow the facts, it's as close as you'll get

[The Irish Marchlands]

There is no "universal truth", so follow the facts, it's as close as you'll get

And that's the universal truth, undoubtedly.

[Dakini]

So far, a majority of this thread has been semantics.

This is also a problem with the world's major religions.

Look at this thread, multiple people disagreeing with each other; all claiming to have the universal truth.

The amount of contradicting "evidence" and arguments is furstrating beyond words.

Who am I to believe?

I don't think that everyone is disagreeing with each other on the point that Bluth is trying to redefine Christianity. Everyone agrees on this point except Bluth, it seems.

[Volnotova]

So far, a majority of this thread has been semantics.

This is also a problem with the world's major religions.

Look at this thread, multiple people disagreeing with each other; all claiming to have the universal truth.

The amount of contradicting "evidence" and arguments is furstrating beyond words.

Who am I to believe?

I don't think that everyone is disagreeing with each other on the point that Bluth is trying to redefine Christianity. Everyone agrees on this point except Bluth, it seems.

That was not the only thing I was referring to.

I am talking about this thread in its entirety, the fact that almost everyone is contradicting each other on various grounds.

[Aesthetica]

So far, a majority of this thread has been semantics.

This is also a problem with the world's major religions.

Look at this thread, multiple people disagreeing with each other; all claiming to have the universal truth.

The amount of contradicting "evidence" and arguments is furstrating beyond words.

Who am I to believe?

I don't think that everyone is disagreeing with each other on the point that Bluth is trying to redefine Christianity. Everyone agrees on this point except Bluth, it seems.

Yeah well, as brands go, he must think that Christianity would sell better than Bluthianity...

Marketing is important to these religious types, how else do you get converts from your rival brands...

[Aesthetica]

That was not the only thing I was referring to.

I am talking about this thread in its entirety, the fact that almost everyone is contradicting each other on various grounds.

Well yeah, that's the point...

Some guy, wants you to believe his belief, pray the way he says, so he comes in and says "blah blah blah proves my god is true bow to him and tithe to my temple", then I say "ah but blah blah blah doesn't prove your god is true, because blah blah blah", they, and this is the exciting part...

YOU get to compare my stuff with his stuff, check the links etc. and then...

YOU get to decide if you are going to pray the way he says and tithe to his temple...

Isn't that exciting...

[The Irish Marchlands]

I don't think that everyone is disagreeing with each other on the point that Bluth is trying to redefine Christianity. Everyone agrees on this point except Bluth, it seems.

That was not the only thing I was referring to.

I am talking about this thread in its entirety, the fact that almost everyone is contradicting each other on various grounds.

Well, that's NSG in a nutshell really. Or really, the world in general. The problem of religion and atheism and absolutely everything that both entail are divisive, precisely because it is in the nature of both to take committed stands and opinions on viewpoints on virtually everything. To the point where even semantics are incredibly serious business (the argument of what exactly being 'Atheist' means for example and why there are so many different perceptions on it is a result of its basic premise that there is no God, it is the same for religions obviously with the original question of God being taken to a different degree) and even amongst Agnosticism there is no widely accepted determining definition. This can of course lead to the 'No Truth' fallacy, where there is no Truth, which is of course, a supposed Truth in itself.

This is the circle jerk. Welcome.

[Aesthetica]

This can of course lead to the 'No Truth' fallacy, where there is no Truth, which is of course, a supposed Truth in itself.

Nah, it's just a fact, no fancy capital letters and attached abstracts, nothing you can earn a Doctorate for at a university...

[The Irish Marchlands]

This can of course lead to the 'No Truth' fallacy, where there is no Truth, which is of course, a supposed Truth in itself.

Nah, it's just a fact, no fancy capital letters and attached abstracts, nothing you can earn a Doctorate for at a university...

You'd be surprised

[Aesthetica]

Nah, it's just a fact, no fancy capital letters and attached abstracts, nothing you can earn a Doctorate for at a university...

You'd be surprised

Heh, if you don't add those fancy capitals to poor unsuspecting verbs and common nouns, to "assimilate" them into the "Abstract Collective" and add them to the corpus of "Learning" and "Wisdom", then theres no Phd waiting for you...

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

I'm of the disposition that Jesus never existed, so you'll get no argument's from me. Christianity is one of many lies the demiurge has constructed to obscure the truth.

[The Irish Marchlands]

You'd be surprised

Heh, if you don't add those fancy capitals to poor unsuspecting verbs and common nouns, to "assimilate" them into the "Abstract Collective" and add them to the corpus of "Learning" and "Wisdom", then theres no Phd waiting for you...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say semantics are serious business.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Who is Paul?
I know a Paul.
But is it the same Paul?

St. Paul.

[Halgrond]

That term belongs to the people who believe that Jesus was a messiah.

I disagree.

Than how do you explain this? The word Christ comes frome the Greek word Christós which means messiah.

[Halgrond]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is incompatible with Christianity. God is only one person, not three. Jesus is only God in that he is a manifestation of who God is in human form.

[Bluth Corporation]

I disagree.

Than how do you explain this? The word Christ comes frome the Greek word Christós which means messiah.

Indeed. So there's no reason to assume the messiah necessarily has to be Jesus personally, unlike Nationstatelandsville argued.

[Halgrond]

Than how do you explain this? The word Christ comes frome the Greek word Christós which means messiah.

Indeed. So there's no reason to assume the messiah necessarily has to be Jesus personally, unlike Nationstatelandsville argued.

The messiah is a Jewish concept. I thought you said that Judaism does not belong in Christianity.

Similarly, the Old Testament is not relevant to Christianity because it is simply the national mythology of the Hebrew people.

[Distruzio]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is incompatible with Christianity. God is only one person, not three. Jesus is only God in that he is a manifestation of who God is in human form.

This is nonsense. God is triune. He is not a monad. To deny this is to deny 2000 years of Christian thought and belief.

Bluth, I love you, brother. I'm pleased you made this thread and I'm sorry I missed it at first. While I disagree with your approach to Christianity, I do find it enthralling and fresh. It certainly isn't the run of the mill Gnosticism - then again, 'run of the mill' isn't exactly a term that accurately describes any variation of Gnosticism, is it? At any rate, I saw the term earlier in the thread, ans I think its the most accurate term that would both satisfy your desire to tie your humanist views with the christ - christianism. I think you should seriously consider using this term to describe your views. It avoids the confusion between yourself and traditional Christians, however incorrect you feel they are in appropriating the term, and it differentiates yourself to such a degree that discussion is invited. It maintains the correlation between humanism and the christ. Its a good term.

[Flameswroth]

I kind of like the Paulinism better. Has more flavor.

Saying you're a Christian under this particular mindset seems to me a lot like taking a cat and removing its claws, eyes, and legs, then setting it in a sling in the corner and telling people that you still own a cat. I mean yeah, you do, but most of the features that made the cat recognizable as and characteristically...cat-like...have been expunged in favor of a furry doorstop in the corner. But hey, at least it doesn't do inconvenient things like knock over vases and unroll your toilet paper.

[Bluth Corporation]

I kind of like the Paulinism better. Has more flavor.

Saying you're a Christian under this particular mindset seems to me a lot like taking a cat and removing its claws, eyes, and legs, then setting it in a sling in the corner and telling people that you still own a cat. I mean yeah, you do, but most of the features that made the cat recognizable as and characteristically...cat-like...have been expunged in favor of a furry doorstop in the corner. But hey, at least it doesn't do inconvenient things like knock over vases and unroll your toilet paper.

The reason I don't agree with this is because, why are the institutional and dogmatic trappings with which you're familiar more essential to Christianity than actual Christ-seeking?