Christian Discussion Thread III

[Distruzio]

Absolutely. It wouldn't change a thing for Christians.

Are you sure about that? What if you know - for sure - that there is somewhere totally legit proof that he's just a fiction. Would you allow it to be widely known fact?
Do you think Christianity would dealt with that truth peacefully? Just like that?

Many of them would never believe it, despite seeing the truth. Rest of them would abandon the Church. Forever.

Well, for me, the existence of God is irrelevant to my belief in Him. I believe because He makes me a better man. I can't speak for others.

The Church would likely maintain His existence as truth, though. It is through the authority of the Church that I make my determination about His existence in the first place.

[Socialist Czechia]

Zeitgeist? Really?

Correct. In these times, it was fashion to have stories about fancy son of god (no matter which one) who acts like superhero with hundred superpowers, but in the end, from various reasons, he will sacrifice himself for a greater good of mankind.

Just like that.

Stories about Super-Jesus simply happened to be very succesful to this very day.

[Distruzio]

Zeitgeist? Really?

Correct. In these times, it was fashion to have stories about fancy son of god (no matter which one) who acts like superhero with hundred superpowers, but in the end, from various reasons, he will sacrifice himself for a greater good of mankind.

Just like that.

Stories about Super-Jesus simply happened to be very succesful to this very day.

You do realize how widely discredited that movie was... right? I mean, even watching it makes no sense. I've seen it. It makes a case in part one protesting the existence of an omnipotent omniscient God by tying that being to a conspiracy for control.... and then extrapolates from that conspiracy for control a meta-governmental conspiracy for control by attributing to this contemporary "zeitgeist" omnipotence and omniscience.

To call shenanigans would be too kind, I think.

[Socialist Czechia]

Correct. In these times, it was fashion to have stories about fancy son of god (no matter which one) who acts like superhero with hundred superpowers, but in the end, from various reasons, he will sacrifice himself for a greater good of mankind.

Just like that.

Stories about Super-Jesus simply happened to be very succesful to this very day.

You do realize how widely discredited that movie was... right? I mean, even watching it makes no sense. I've seen it. It makes a case in part one protesting the existence of an omnipotent omniscient God by tying that being to a conspiracy for control.... and then extrapolates from that conspiracy for control a meta-governmental conspiracy for control by attributing to this contemporary "zeitgeist" omnipotence and omniscience.

To call shenanigans would be too kind, I think.

Wait. You meant the movie? Never heard about it.

I meant the term 'zeitgeist'. Do you know what that means?

The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time.

Supermen like Jesus, Horus or Mithra and others were parts of that ancient fashion

[Distruzio]

You do realize how widely discredited that movie was... right? I mean, even watching it makes no sense. I've seen it. It makes a case in part one protesting the existence of an omnipotent omniscient God by tying that being to a conspiracy for control.... and then extrapolates from that conspiracy for control a meta-governmental conspiracy for control by attributing to this contemporary "zeitgeist" omnipotence and omniscience.

To call shenanigans would be too kind, I think.

Wait. You meant the movie? Never heard about it.

I meant the term 'zeitgeist'. Do you know what that means?

The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time.

Supermen like Jesus, Horus or Mithra and others were parts of that ancient fashion

Yes, I'm aware. I merely took you to mean the movie.

So what about zeitgeist suggests that Christianity is a lie?

[Socialist Czechia]

Wait. You meant the movie? Never heard about it.

I meant the term 'zeitgeist'. Do you know what that means?



Supermen like Jesus, Horus or Mithra and others were parts of that ancient fashion

Yes, I'm aware. I merely took you to mean the movie.

So what about zeitgeist suggests that Christianity is a lie?

I am saying Jesus is a lie. Not Christianity. You claimed that his existence is not important for it, just a guy in a story, so what?

[Daenemark]

not really, that was kind of my point all along, and ya.
my point is that nothing is 100% clear, people can always use different interpretations or ways of looking at things to defend their beliefs. if u feel that abortion is wrong and you can back it up with scriptural evidence, then you can do that. but if you don't think it's necessarily wrong, or u think free will is more important than what you think someone should do with their own body, then you can back it up with different ideas/lack of evidence.

If one were to think free will is more important then preventing murder, one must think that there should be no laws at all, since free will is evidently more important then a civilized society.

Again, not murder. A lump of cells isn't a human being, and it's not necessarily unlawful killing.

[Distruzio]

Yes, I'm aware. I merely took you to mean the movie.

So what about zeitgeist suggests that Christianity is a lie?

I am saying Jesus is a lie. Not Christianity. You claimed that his existence is not important for it, just a guy in a story, so what?

Ah, so Jesus is the lie? Well, as I said, I can't really discuss that with you as it would derail the thread. Moreover, I didn't claim that His existence wasn't important, just that the revelation of a lie about His existence was, to me, irrelevant. I also said that the Church, being the authority on what faith in Christ means for the Christian, would likely perpetuate despite the revelation you hypothesize.

That isn't the same thing as saying "Jesus existence isn't important."

[Socialist Czechia]

I am saying Jesus is a lie. Not Christianity. You claimed that his existence is not important for it, just a guy in a story, so what?

Ah, so Jesus is the lie? Well, as I said, I can't really discuss that with you as it would derail the thread. Moreover, I didn't claim that His existence wasn't important, just that the revelation of a lie about His existence was, to me, irrelevant. I also said that the Church, being the authority on what faith in Christ means for the Christian, would likely perpetuate despite the revelation you hypothesize.

That isn't the same thing as saying "Jesus existence isn't important."

Clarification: Existence of Jesus is highly unlikely possibility but since so many depends on his presumed existence as solid unbreakable part of human culture, it actually doesn't matter if it's lie, so when I am saying story about him are lies, it's not important, so you shouldn't be so touchy feely about it.

Yup, it's the same thing. You mistakes semantics with cosmetics there.

[The New Great Roman Empire]

Yes, I'm aware. I merely took you to mean the movie.

So what about zeitgeist suggests that Christianity is a lie?

I am saying Jesus is a lie. Not Christianity. You claimed that his existence is not important for it, just a guy in a story, so what?

So, again, who in history before the medieval age that is not incredibly famous, in their time, has any documented evidence of their existence from anything less than 50 years after they died?

[Jumalariik]

Is this not basic Christian doctrine?

-Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
-Virgin birth of Jesus
-Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
-Bodily resurrection of Jesus
-Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

[Socialist Czechia]

I am saying Jesus is a lie. Not Christianity. You claimed that his existence is not important for it, just a guy in a story, so what?

So, again, who in history before the medieval age that is not incredibly famous, in their time, has any documented evidence of their existence from anything less than 50 years after they died?

I wrote '50-100 year' which is reasonable limit, I think. When some dude will wrote about you 200 years after your death, should I believe him any piece of your story? But 50 or 100 years...some people which knew you personally could still be alive, so it seems much more legit.

Let me ask you, if person called 'Jesus' did only a 10% of things which are claimed by Bible, people would wrote and talked about him very long time, correct? Not only local elites but all people. If not any scholar, then people would knew him in own legends for decades, more like for centuries. There would be at least primitive sculptures of him, perhaps painting on something, anything you can imagine. Remember, it were ancient times, people had just a little fun to do, so various legends and royal gossips were more than popular.

Well, it was funny night. We didn't even broke Godwin's law Little miracle perhaps?

[Mostrov]

Many scholars in his time or soon after his death mentioned him, there are even his statues with his face and name.
So your comparison is incorrect.

Do you people knows something about Horus? His story is INCREDIBLY similar to Jesus's, and much older. Son of god, exactly same miracles, sacrificed himself for a humanity.

And there are few other gods, which could claim their copyright on Jesus's story. Like Mithra.

I am asking you. What. If. It's. All. Lie? If you can not even imagine that possibility, it's the reason why it doesn't matter if it's truth.

How do you know that 'Jesus' isn't fictional character created by some manipulative 'prophet' who claimed things which were perhaps partially true (to not raise so much suspicions...but I guess in ancient times it doesn't matter so much like today) and his cult had simply luck and became powerful?

As a preface to this, I should add I am not a Christian, my beliefs are best described as ambiguous and I myself am to timid to actually push something forward - the best description I would say of myself is Agnostic (even as so far as to say that even the mind is knowledgable, and hence knowledge itself isn't). I am however a cultural Christian especially of Anglican nature and am generally quite sympathetic towards Christianity, and I do feel quite obliged to defend what I see as rather fatuous misrepresentation.

Now, here is a challenge for you. Can you actually provide a reliable citation for Socrates existence? If you can you have done something that classical scholars, those who do what they do for a living, even argue over.

In fact I am well aware of the mythology of Egypt and the influence of Zoroastrianism and the like on the old testament, it is quite suprising how many ancient mesopotamian beliefs are included for instance. I could probably give you a long lecture on Yahweh as as descendant of the Jewish pantheon as a god of war, hence his early title Lord of Hosts.

And yes, while there is certainly some influence to see such a parallel is a bit absurd. When exactly was Horus worshipped? Again where are the parallels? Why wasn't Jesus created 3,000 years before he was if this was infact the case? Why pay such scrupulous attention to claiming descent for Jews, who at least given their narrative regarding Exodus don't have much credence in Egypt? Why that particular time?
There are questions with such a theory that don't make much sense.

Why not say he was a post-fact invention by Greek Neoplatonists, which to be honest is probably more plausible, especially given their theological influence. Of course there will always be mythological perspectives on the whole affair, and yes those biases do find their way into the Bible and we can certainly speak of certain resemblances that all messiahs, prophets and heroes have.

However to proclaim that he doesn't exist is bizarre. Such a claim makes sense if you are trying to disprove it, but again there is about as much evidence as you would expect. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to say that there was a charismatic preacher in the Levant who was born circa 0 AD who was named Jesus who had several disciples.

If it is all a myth where do all these disciples come from? And why is attention paid to them respectively in the religion? And the people who claim succession from them respectively?

What evidence is there of Buddha? That isn't a Buddhist scripture? (Ironically enough he is infact a Christian Saint)

[Constantinopolis]

It is wrong. Just because abortion is wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. When did Jesus ever say "Use my teachings to make the laws for all people."

When did Christ ever imply that murdering innocent people should be legal, or that it was okay to allow it to be legal?

It is, in fact, legal to murder innocent people under certain circumstances. Most notably during wars, when civilian casualties cannot be avoided. But also, when certain natural disasters happen, it is legal to cause the deaths of some people in order to save a greater number of others. This is how quarantine works in case of an epidemic, for example. You draw a line around an infected region and don't let anyone in or out. By doing so, you condemn the people inside the line to death, but you (hopefully) save the rest.

So no, the idea that a fetus is a human person does not automatically force you to conclude that abortion should be illegal.

Remember, illegal things still happen. Making something illegal does not magically stop it from happening. It only imposes a punishment on the people who do it, thus hopefully making the thing happen less often.

So, one of the things to consider when thinking about the legality of abortion is: Will the number of abortions actually decrease by any significant amount if you make them illegal? Banning abortion would certainly impose a lot of hardship and suffering on many people, so would it actually save enough lives to justify this suffering and hardship? Maybe, or maybe not.

[The Flood]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, I thought your point was that abortion can't be murder if it's legal.

That's an entirely different point than what I interpreted you saying, and perhaps even what I was lead to believe.
In fact, that's an entirely different conversation.

it was in the back of my head while i was writing on here. my point isn't to 'prove that abortion is right/wrong', it was to show that it's not 100% clear either way.

It is 100% clear, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human beings, and is morally equivelent to killing any other human being, objectively.

[The Flood]

If one were to think free will is more important then preventing murder, one must think that there should be no laws at all, since free will is evidently more important then a civilized society.

You can not have civilized society without free will, hence you should re-evaluate your opinions if you are against or for tyranny.
Not allowing abortions is tyranny, no matter by which you will try to argue. You can not change this simple fact. It is a tyranny to take a choice from women. Period.

No, it is tyranny to deny a human being the right to live based on the frivolous whims of their parent.

[Socialist Czechia]

it was in the back of my head while i was writing on here. my point isn't to 'prove that abortion is right/wrong', it was to show that it's not 100% clear either way.

It is 100% clear, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human beings, and is morally equivelent to killing any other human being, objectively.

Still funny how touchy Christians are about unconscious tiny fetuses all the time, but apparently, they doesn't care so much about massacres of Christians in Syria or central Africa or in dozen similar places in this very moment.
Otherwise they would at least demonstrate to push their governments to support more tolerant regime, like Assad one's, which is totally preferable before creation of muslim theocracy.

Just funny idea, what would happen if Pope dared to announce new Crusade? How many Christians would be really prepared to go somewhere to Holy War? Still millions, I am sure...

[The Flood]

Because if you can't even understand yourself, how could you expect your family to. Only God fully understands you. And when you said, talk to your love. Well, God is my love.

That awkward moment, when you realize how free will is badly affected by religious indoctrination, which totally isn't to laugh anymore...

I'd politely like to ask you to just please leave. All you're doing in here is condescending on religious users with poorly thought out arguments, accusations of mental illness, and it is clear that English isn't even your first language so you're not even making much sense.

[Constantinopolis]

It is 100% clear, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human beings, and is morally equivelent to killing any other human being, objectively.

Yes, and therefore banning abortion would (probably) save some lives by reducing the abortion rate (but remember, it may not reduce it by much, since illegal things still happen). However, that does not necessarily mean that we should ban abortion.

There are many things we could do that would definitely save lives, but we don't do them because they would impose too much hardship on people.

For example, we could make it illegal for anyone to own a gun or any weapon more dangerous than a kitchen knife, and institute random searches of people's homes (especially in troubled neighborhoods) to find and confiscate all weapons. Or we could ban cars and require people to walk or take the train instead (cars kill a lot of people, and trains are much safer). These policies would save a lot of lives, probably more than banning abortion. So, should we enact them? Obviously not, they're completely unreasonable.

[The Norgan Alliance]

It is 100% clear, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human beings, and is morally equivelent to killing any other human being, objectively.

Still funny how touchy Christians are about unconscious tiny fetuses all the time, but apparently, they doesn't care so much about massacres of Christians in Syria or central Africa or in dozen similar places in this very moment.
Otherwise they would at least demonstrate to push their governments to support more tolerant regime, like Assad one's, which is totally preferable before creation of muslim theocracy.

Just funny idea, what would happen if Pope dared to announce new Crusade? How many Christians would be really prepared to go somewhere to Holy War? Still millions, I am sure...

They crusades were fueled by politics not religion.

When you're done with your science book let me know, I have a couple of History books I want you to borrow.

[Socialist Czechia]

You can not have civilized society without free will, hence you should re-evaluate your opinions if you are against or for tyranny.
Not allowing abortions is tyranny, no matter by which you will try to argue. You can not change this simple fact. It is a tyranny to take a choice from women. Period.

No, it is tyranny to deny a human being the right to live based on the frivolous whims of their parent.

You was also frivolous whim of your parent, I was frivolous whim of my parent.

And yes, you exists just because your mother did let you exist and grow inside her and she had totally every right to un-exist you, when you were just fetus.

Just like that.

Deal with it and stop whine.

[Constantinopolis]

Otherwise they would at least demonstrate to push their governments to support more tolerant regime, like Assad one's, which is totally preferable before creation of muslim theocracy.

I support Assad. I know many Christians who support Assad. At this point I'd expect that everyone who knows anything at all about the Middle East supports Assad.

and it is clear that English isn't even your first language so you're not even making much sense.

That's uncalled for, Flood.

English isn't my first language either.

[Socialist Czechia]

That awkward moment, when you realize how free will is badly affected by religious indoctrination, which totally isn't to laugh anymore...

I'd politely like to ask you to just please leave. All you're doing in here is condescending on religious users with poorly thought out arguments, accusations of mental illness, and it is clear that English isn't even your first language so you're not even making much sense.

Come on, try to make such a transparent attempt to end conversation by this way, just because you are out of arguments, that's just low...

[The Flood]

When did Christ ever imply that murdering innocent people should be legal, or that it was okay to allow it to be legal?

It is, in fact, legal to murder innocent people under certain circumstances. Most notably during wars, when civilian casualties cannot be avoided. But also, when certain natural disasters happen, it is legal to cause the deaths of some people in order to save a greater number of others. This is how quarantine works in case of an epidemic, for example. You draw a line around an infected region and don't let anyone in or out. By doing so, you condemn the people inside the line to death, but you (hopefully) save the rest.

So no, the idea that a fetus is a human person does not automatically force you to conclude that abortion should be illegal.

Remember, illegal things still happen. Making something illegal does not magically stop it from happening. It only imposes a punishment on the people who do it, thus hopefully making the thing happen less often.

So, one of the things to consider when thinking about the legality of abortion is: Will the number of abortions actually decrease by any significant amount if you make them illegal? Banning abortion would certainly impose a lot of hardship and suffering on many people, so would it actually save enough lives to justify this suffering and hardship? Maybe, or maybe not.

It does justify it. If even one less innocent child dies, it is justified. And it would certainly save a lot more then 1 innocent child.

[The Flood]

Otherwise they would at least demonstrate to push their governments to support more tolerant regime, like Assad one's, which is totally preferable before creation of muslim theocracy.

I support Assad. I know many Christians who support Assad. At this point I'd expect that everyone who knows anything at all about the Middle East supports Assad.

and it is clear that English isn't even your first language so you're not even making much sense.

That's uncalled for, Flood.
English isn't my first language either.

You speak it well, he does not. I did not intend it as an insult, of him or you, but regardless, I am sorry.