Liars for Jesus

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Liars for Jesus

I found this website about how the Radical Christians wish to re-write history. It's an online book and from what I've read (so far), I like it.

I have read historical evidence that shows that people like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were Deists. They believed in God and they were agnostic about it. They believed that the forming of this country should separate church and state. They believed that the persecution they experienced in Britain should not be a part of the new country.

http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ben Franklin, Thomas

Quote:
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington....believed that the persecution they experienced in Britain should not be a part of the new country.

 

Talk about rewriting history....all three of these men were born in the colonies and never suffered any persecution for what they believed in Britain.  Only the most historically illiterate would claim Franklin or Jefferson to Christianity, though I think a claim could be made for Washington.  It was never the founding Fathers' intention to set up a God-free nation, however, just one that didn't push a particular religion onto its inhabitants.  From the very beginning America has been intended as a place for religious tolerance where anybody can believe whatever they want to believe about God, etc.  Contrary to what some atheists believe, few Christians have forcing Christianity down people's throats at the top of their agenda for America. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

Contrary to what some atheists believe, few Christians have forcing Christianity down people's throats at the top of their agenda for America. 

That's some mighty good work by just a "few."  We've got serial reinforcing god devices in our pledge and on our money, and not to mention of course the "few" leaders that decided that atheist tax money to benefit "faith based" groups is fair.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I never said that any of

I never said that any of those three men were born in Britain, so please don't "put words in my mouth".

My grammar was poor and to clairfy my statement, all three men experienced persecution from Britain in many different forms. Using the preposition IN was a typo.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

Quote:
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington....believed that the persecution they experienced in Britain should not be a part of the new country.

 

Talk about rewriting history....all three of these men were born in the colonies and never suffered any persecution for what they believed in Britain. Only the most historically illiterate would claim Franklin or Jefferson to Christianity, though I think a claim could be made for Washington. It was never the founding Fathers' intention to set up a God-free nation, however, just one that didn't push a particular religion onto its inhabitants. From the very beginning America has been intended as a place for religious tolerance where anybody can believe whatever they want to believe about God, etc. Contrary to what some atheists believe, few Christians have forcing Christianity down people's throats at the top of their agenda for America.

Quote:
It was never the founding Fathers' intention to set up a God-free nation

THANK YOU CAPTIAN OBVIOUS! But they also DID NOT mention Jesus or Chrisitanity as the sole owner and interpreter and author of OUR Constitution.

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Artical 11 , treaty of tripoly, signed by both houses of congress without dissent and signed into law by president John Adams, June 10th 1797.

It was there intent to leave religion OUT of politics because when it was interjected it became divisive. They knew that beyond labels that people had the ability to find common ground and could agree on common law. 

The Constitution defends freedom of religion, and the only way all citizens can be free is that if the goverment stays out of playing favorites or giving aid to any. It is not a ban on religion, merely a statement that religion must survive without government help.

We see what happens in the Middle east in Saudi Arabia, and Iran when government imbraces religion as public policy. Our goverment protects religion, but does not aid it or favor one ove another. At least that is what the founders intended.

Think about it, we bitch when poor people who sit on their ass get government aid, we bitch when megga corperations blow stocks and put the investers in the tank and then want a government bailout, why should religion get welfare either?

 The founders never said, "Go away religion". They said, "You can do it, just dont ask for our help"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: We've got serial

Quote:
We've got serial reinforcing god devices in our pledge and on our money

 

Just to be clear, I said Christians generally do not favor forcing people to be Christians.  A generic mention of "God" on a coin or in a pledge hardly equals  forcing Christianity down anybody's throats.  I, for one, think it's a joke anyway.  America as a nation couldn't care less about God; t hey might as well take out the "under God" clause in the pledge and on the coin.

 

Quote:
not to mention of course the "few" leaders that decided that atheist tax money to benefit "faith based" groups is fair

 

Just like it's not fair for the government to use my tax dollars to finance such things as the NEA, which constantly promotes art blasphemous towards Xianity, and abortion clinics.

 

As an aside, what "faith-based" groups do you have in mind here?


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I never said that

Quote:

I never said that any of those three men were born in Britain, so please don't "put words in my mouth".

My grammar was poor and to clairfy my statement, all three men experienced persecution from Britain in many different forms. Using the preposition IN was a typo.

 

Uhuh, and so what kinds or forms of persecution did they receive from Britain that are germane to the discussion of separation of church and state?  Are you suggesting they were persecuted by Britain because they were deists? 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:
Quote:

Uhuh, and so what kinds or forms of persecution did they receive from Britain that are germane to the discussion of separation of church and state?  Are you suggesting they were persecuted by Britain because they were deists? 

Uhuh. I guess the American Revolution was all about some silly dispute over who should pay for dinner?

This thread is not about the separation of church and state, in fact, this thread has very little to do with the separation of church and state. It has to do with the changes in US history that is being made by various Christians influences.

But since we are on the subject, persecution can come in different forms and it isn't only religion. People can be persecuted for race, color, religion and politics to name a few.

How you got stuck going in this direction is confusing to me because I believe my post is labeled 'Liars for Jesus'.

Also, did you go to the link I provided to read the research from the author? I guess not since you want to focus on stuff which is barely a foot note for me on this thread.

But since you asked, Why not read some of Ben Franklin's writings. I'm sure I can find some stuff from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson too.

Which reminds me that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (an Atheist!) were good friends...

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" & "The Rights of Man" had a heavy influence on the American Revolution. Also Thomas Paine's writings had an influence on some of the most important documents of our country, including the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that without Thomas Paine there may not have been an American Revolution."

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/06/02/har06002.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#American_Revolution

Try reading Ben Franklin's letter to the London Packet, dated June 3rd, 1772 concerning the Church of England and land/taxes.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions14.html

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

Quote:
Just to be clear, I said Christians generally do not favor forcing people to be Christians.

Only to the extent that "human" morality has progressed beyond religious fervor.  Somehow the rack, burning oil poured upon the flesh and drowning while strapped to a board have lost their appeal among the common man.

No, what we experience today is a much more passive-aggressive approach.  You emphasize love and kindness to the masses, while keeping god's "more unpopular" words amongst yourselves.  

However the words of a "divine being" written in a book that you take as the literal word of "god" are pretty clear.

- You are to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every living creature. Mark 16:15

     - Those who do not believe the literal words of this book/gospel are to be damned.

 - christ will burn the damned w/ fire unquenchable.

- You are to hold the unbeliever with derision. force him/her to be your slave. Turn families against one another, pitting brother against brother, parent against child, etc. pour out thy fury and wrath upon the unbeliever, wipe the unbeliever from the face of the earth, etc.  

christ came not to send peace but a sword.

Either the words of your "god" are bullshit and you pick and choose which ones you feel like obeying or you're being deliberately deceitful by claiming that "christ's followers generally do not favor forcing people to be christians". With a moral guideline like the above to follow, exactly what method of conversion or say...atrocity would be "off limits" to a follower of christ ?

 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
  digitalbeachbum

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 This thread is not about the separation of church and state, in fact, this thread has very little to do with the separation of church and state. . . .How you got stuck going in this direction is confusing to me because I believe my post is labeled 'Liars for Jesus'.

 

 Allow me to clear up your confusion.  IT'S BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP!  Your original post states:

Quote:
They believed that the forming of this country should separate church and state. They believed that the persecution they experienced in Britain should not be a part of the new country.

 These two statements nestled right next to each other make you sound like you are suggesting that these three men experienced religious persecution in/from (or whatever you actually meant to write here) Britain and set up America so that wouldn't happen here.  I am suggesting that these men didn't receive any sort of religious persecution from Britain since they were born in America and never lived in Britain.  How could Britain persecute them religiously?  The Anglican Church had no power in America which was the whole point of the pilgrims coming over here in the first place.

Quote:
But since you asked, Why not read some of Ben Franklin's writings. I'm sure I can find some stuff from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson too.

 

What exactly do you think I asked, and how is reading Benjamin Franklin supposed to answer this question?  I am fully aware that BF and TJ were not Christians.  Few maintain that they were.  At the same time, though they were not Christians, they were both sympathetic to many of the values of Christianity.  BF was good friends with George Whitefield, and was the one who suggested every session of Congress begin with prayer, a custom they still practice to this day.

 

Quote:
Which reminds me that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (an Atheist!) were good friends...

 

And....


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You are to go into

Quote:
You are to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every living creature.

And this is persecution--to share with people what I believe to be good news of Jesus?  Since when has stating one's opinions to someone else in a non-threatening way persecution?

 

Quote:
Those who do not believe the literal words of this book/gospel are to be damned.

 - christ will burn the damned w/ fire unquenchable.

 

Okay so this is the bad news.  Few committed Christians (the kind who go out and preach the gospel) hide this from people, which seems to contradict your point about us hiding the bad news.  This isn't our fault, we just the messengers.  Take it up with God.  This still doesn't qualify as persecution IMO.

 

Quote:
You are to hold the unbeliever with derision. force him/her to be your slave. Turn families against one another, pitting brother against brother, parent against child, etc. pour out thy fury and wrath upon the unbeliever, wipe the unbeliever from the face of the earth

 

See, now you're just pulling shit out of your ass and hoping some of it will stick if you throw it hard enough.  The Bible (particularly the NT) doesn't say any of this.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

 ...two statements nestled right next to each other make...blah blah blah...religious persecution in/from... blah blah blah...didn't receive any sort of religious persecution from...blah blah blah...How could Britain persecute them religiously?  The Anglican Church had no power...blah blah blah... the pilgrims coming over here in the first place.

Sorry, but you are boring me with this religious persecution stuff. I've stated my facts, provided you with quotes and links to my sources.

Christians of one form or another have in the past and are currently, rewriting US history. Please check the link I posted on in my first message. It will lead you to the real subject of this thread. If you wish to discuss that subject I'll be happy to continue with you. If not, I'm sure there is another thread about Religious Persecution, if not start one of your own.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

Quote:
And this is persecution--to share with people what I believe to be good news of Jesus? 
  

If you do not accept Allah as your one and only god you will burn in fire for eternity.  That "good news" to you ?  BTW this is also begging the question.

Quote:
Since when has stating one's opinions to someone else in a non-threatening way persecution?

When dissent for your "opinion" brings bigotry, hatred, exclusion, torture and death per the words of your own god.  Are you that dense ? 

Quote:

You are to hold the unbeliever with derision. force him/her to be your slave. Turn families against one another, pitting brother against brother, parent against child, etc. pour out thy fury and wrath upon the unbeliever, wipe the unbeliever from the face of the earth

See, now you're just pulling shit out of your ass and hoping some of it will stick if you throw it hard enough.  The Bible (particularly the NT) doesn't say any of this.

Is it just sheer laziness or a complete lack of intellect that forces an atheist to yet again teach a theist what their own sacred scriptures teach ?

Psalm 59:5  Oh god of Israel awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors.

Psalm 59:8 But thou o lord shalt laugh at them, thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance.

Psalm 149:5 let the saints be joyful in glory let them sing aloud upon their beds. 

psalm 149:6 let the high praises of god be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hands

psalm 149:7 to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people.

psalm 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles w/ irons.  

Matthew 10:34 Think not that i am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a sword.

matthew 10:35 for I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother, etc. etc. 

jeremiah 10:25 pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not and upon the families that call not on thy name. 

john 3:36 .....he that believeth not the son shall not see life but the wrath of god abideth in him.

Exodus 22:20 he that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Deuteronomy 13:12-13:15- if a city worships a different god, thou shalt destroy the city, all its inhabitants, and even its cattle.. blah blah blah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It never ceases to amaze me

It never ceases to amaze me that the people most angry with God and the Bible and Christianity are those most ignorant about all three.  I suppose that's not surprising since ignorance very often brings bigotry and ill-will along with it. 

 

First of all, before I address the various scriptural proofs you have brought up, a word about one's approach to the Bible as a whole.  Not everything in the Bible is equally applicable.  No Christian believes that.  If we did we would be sacrificing animals and circumcising our babies, and (indeed) dashing the children of unbelievers against rocks.

The reason we do not believe that all parts of the Bible apply to us today equally is because we view the Bible as a story that begins at creation and in some ways ends sometime before the end of the first century.  Without going into detail, much of the OT was written to the Jews who were God's chosen people at that time and while we can gain some information from it, after the coming of Jesus and the production of the NT it no longer applied to God's people.  So in some of my explanation below, when I suggest that some OT passage no longer applies, please don't take that as a convenient "non-literal" interpretation or cop-out or whatever.  It is consistent with the traditional Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.  Much of the OT was written to the Jews for their time.  The NT was written to Christians and has more weight behind what it says because it is a new revelation specifically to the Church.

 

Now you said that according to the Bible, we Christians "are to hold the unbeliever with derision"

 

 

You use as your prooftext Ps. 59:8 which does not tell anyone to hold the unbeliever with derision.  It is describing what God is doing.  The NT says the love our enemies, to be kind to those who are persecuting us, etc. etc.  Basically we are to be nice to people who do not believe as we do.  We are not to deride them because we were once unbelievers ourselves.

Then you say the Bible tells us to "Turn families against one another, pitting brother against brother, parent against child."

 

Again, no, the verse you use has JESUS saying that HE came to do that, not that his followers were to do that.

 

Jeremiah 10:25 is a prayer to God for Him to pour out HIS f ury on the heathen, not a command to Christians to do so.  Keep in mind that Jeremiah prayed this after the Assyrians (or maybe the Babylonians) came in and destroyed Jerusalem the Holy City, so he was a little pissed off.

 

All the other verses about killing or destroying the heathen are from the OT, directed towards the Jews in that time period and are things that we are told not to do in the NT.  As I said, according to the NT we are to share our beliefs with everyone we can but we are not supposed to force them to accept it if they don't want to.  As I said, Christianity is not about forcing it down people's throats.

 

Next you said that we are to "force him/her to be your slave."  You use as your prooftext Ps. 2:8 which is so wrong its tragic.  One, nowhere is anyone given license to force anyone to be anyone's slave.  God is making a promise there.  Second, God is making a promise to the prophesied Messiah (i.e. Jesus) not to anybody who happens to be reading.  And third, the idea behind God giving Christ the heathen as an inheritance is that t hey would be subjects in his kingdom, i.e. Christians. 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:...a

irrespective wrote:

...a word about one's approach to the Bible as a whole.  Not everything in the Bible is equally applicable.  No Christian believes that.  If we did we would be sacrificing animals and circumcising our babies, and (indeed) dashing the children of unbelievers against rocks.

 I hope some day you will look back on what you said and say to your self, "Holy Crap, How could I have been such a sack of numb nuts..."

Quote:
The reason we do not believe that all parts of the Bible apply to us today equally is because we view the Bible as a story that begins at creation and in some ways ends sometime before the end of the first century.  Without going into detail, much of the OT was written to the Jews who were God's chosen people

..The Jews=God's Chosen... 

Quote:
 at that time and while we can gain some information from it, after the coming of Jesus and the production of the NT it no longer applied to God's people.

The Jews... ya know.. God's ex-Chosen People...

Quote:
So in some of my explanation below, when I suggest that some OT passage no longer applies, please don't take that as a convenient "non-literal" interpretation or cop-out or whatever.  It is consistent with the traditional Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.  Much of the OT was written to the Jews

God not so Chosen People...

Quote:
...for their time.  The NT was written to Christians

God's newly self appointed chosen people...

Quote:
and has more weight behind what it says because it is a new revelation specifically to the Church.

because God put on weight with age...

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This is supposed to be a

This is supposed to be a rational response?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:

irrespective wrote:
This is supposed to be a rational response?

For what was essentially, "The entire Bible is the inspired word of God but as Pauline Christians we only have to pay attention to the epistles because Paul (or the guys who wrote under his name) said the things we like to hear", yes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: This is

irrespective wrote:
This is supposed to be a rational response?

I believe my humor was more rational and logical than your previous post, "No Christian believes that...".

To say what you said was conceited, arrogant and ignorant.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: For what

jcgadfly wrote:
For what was essentially, "The entire Bible is the inspired word of God but as Pauline Christians we only have to pay attention to the epistles because Paul (or the guys who wrote under his name) said the things we like to hear", yes

 

I'm not going to take the time to explain the Christian interpretation of the Bible and why they give precedence to the NT over the OT, lest I be accused of attempted proselytization.  Let's just say, you can read any conservative introductory book on the Bible and get a good explanation for why.  In a nutshell it involves looking at the Bible as a whole and seeing the narrative the runs through it from Gen. to Rev., rather than attempting to look at it atomistically, which is what you guys are doing here.  As I have repeatedly said here, uninformed and, hence, ignorant critique of the Christian interpretation of the Bible makes you so-called rationalists look really foolish.  You should really try to understand Christianity BEFORE you critique it.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe my humor was more rational and logical than your previous post, "No Christian believes that...".

To say what you said was conceited, arrogant and ignorant.

 

To make naked assertions and call people names certainly isn't a rational response either.  Geez.  I thought you guys could do better than this.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
For what was essentially, "The entire Bible is the inspired word of God but as Pauline Christians we only have to pay attention to the epistles because Paul (or the guys who wrote under his name) said the things we like to hear", yes

 

I'm not going to take the time to explain the Christian interpretation of the Bible and why they give precedence to the NT over the OT, lest I be accused of attempted proselytization.  Let's just say, you can read any conservative introductory book on the Bible and get a good explanation for why.  In a nutshell it involves looking at the Bible as a whole and seeing the narrative the runs through it from Gen. to Rev., rather than attempting to look at it atomistically, which is what you guys are doing here.  As I have repeatedly said here, uninformed and, hence, ignorant critique of the Christian interpretation of the Bible makes you so-called rationalists look really foolish.  You should really try to understand Christianity BEFORE you critique it.

Do you even bother reading what you type?

You said it again - "the Bible should be taken as a whole but Christians give precedence to the NT because it has more meaning for them"

Actually, the Church gave more meaning to the NT because Jesus was an more palatable product to sell to the masses.

What I don't understand is why Christians give Paul precedence to the supposed words of the son of their God. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
First of all, if you really

First of all, if you really cared at all about truth you would actually become familiar with Christianity's actual stance on the Bible.  Secondly, I never said what you put in quotations as my statement, and I don't know of any traditional Christians who would say that.  Thirdly, Christians see no discrepancy between what Paul wrote and what Jesus said.  Perhaps you would like to point those out for me.  Paul is the traditional author of half the NT so obviously his writings have had a big impact on the Church.  But last time I checked we don't put Paul's words in red, so I don't see how we emphasize his teachings more than Jesus'.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:

irrespective wrote:
First of all, if you really cared at all about truth you would actually become familiar with Christianity's actual stance on the Bible. Secondly, I never said what you put in quotations as my statement, and I don't know of any traditional Christians who would say that. Thirdly, Christians see no discrepancy between what Paul wrote and what Jesus said. Perhaps you would like to point those out for me. Paul is the traditional author of half the NT so obviously his writings have had a big impact on the Church. But last time I checked we don't put Paul's words in red, so I don't see how we emphasize his teachings more than Jesus'.

Thanks for showing me you indeed don't read what you type.

You wrote:

"I'm not going to take the time to explain the Christian interpretation of the Bible and why they give precedence to the NT over the OT, lest I be accused of attempted proselytization. "

In other words, Christians give precedence to the NT.

Then came:

"In a nutshell it involves looking at the Bible as a whole and seeing the narrative the runs through it from Gen. to Rev., rather than attempting to look at it atomistically, which is what you guys are doing here."

Translated - the Bible should be taken as a whole.

Is it becaus I claimed that you said it has more meaning for Christians?

That came from your post where you wrote:

"Much of the OT was written to the Jews for their time.  The NT was written to Christians and has more weight behind what it says because it is a new revelation specifically to the Church."

Please be careful when calling people liars.

Paul's words may not be in red letters but the majority of Christians I know follow Paul's words over Jesus'. Is it because he wrote the majority of the NT (much of it before the gospels and the Jesus character were thought up)?

If that's true why do Christians get their panties in such a bunch when I say that Paul created christianity?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Heya JCGadfly!  Hope you

Heya JCGadfly!  Hope you don't mind me butting in.

jcgadfly wrote:
In other words, Christians give precedence to the NT.

Of course.  The NT is, in the words of St Jerome, the OT revealed.  The OT was the promise, the new the fulfillment and realization of that promise.

jcgadfly wrote:
Paul's words may not be in red letters but the majority of Christians I know follow Paul's words over Jesus'.

Where does Paul diverge from the teachings of Jesus?

jcgadfly wrote:
Is it because he wrote the majority of the NT (much of it before the gospels and the Jesus character were thought up)?

Yes, he wrote a good part of the New Testament.  As for Paul writing before the writing of the Gospels, well, you know where I stand on that issue, but for the sake of other readers who don't, lemme just say that the earliest witnesses of the Church (ie, the Church Fathers) simply don't support that assertion.

jcgadfly wrote:
If that's true why do Christians get their panties in such a bunch when I say that Paul created christianity?

'Cause it just ain't so.  The Church was founded by Jesus Christ.  Paul was certainly one of the great forces behind the success of the early Church, though.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    hi  totus_tuus 

    hi  totus_tuus  "Where does Paul diverge from the teachings of Jesus?"

-----------------------------------

When he didn't realize WE ARE ALL GOD, so most all of it is shit, Paul is way shity.

Thomas Jefferson knew Jesus better than sad Paul  .....

and I know >jesus< better than 'bright' Tom .....

ask a wise buddhist, we like "jesus" a "christ" idea of seeking our idenity ....

paul was talented but confused, .... poor old fella .....  

I use to be mad at him, now I just feel sorry for him ....  


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: When

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
When he didn't realize WE ARE ALL GOD, so most all of it is shit, Paul is way shity.

Nah, I ain't buying it.  Christians forming a "mystical body of Christ" is one of the recurring themes of Paul's letters.  See Eph 9:29-30, Col 2:19-20, and especially 1 Cor 12:12-27.  Paul realizes we are all part of God.

I think, while Paul gets a bit cranky from time to time, "shitty" is a bit strong.  Paul's emphatic, that's all.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  I can agree , What a

  I can agree ,

What a guy, from mad at him , to sorry for him , to loving him ...... he wrote some way cool stuff, his best,  what is LOVE !


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: he

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
he wrote some way cool stuff, his best,  what is LOVE !

Absolutely!  My favorite passage from all of Paul.  Especially the last coupla verses of 1 Cor 13, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when i became a man, I gave up childish ways...."

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   we are paul jesus

   we are paul jesus buddha jefferson einstein

we are one , all is one, we are religion , we are science . we are god ,

next stop, on this part of our special voyage is the black hole of our sun , then what ?  amazing cosmos,  amazing god , and where did I come from ?

 


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: we

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
we are paul jesus buddha jefferson einstein

we are one , all is one, we are religion , we are science . we are god ,

next stop, on this part of our special voyage is the black hole of our sun , then what ?  amazing cosmos,  amazing god , and where did I come from ?

Every once in a while, I really like the stuff you write.  Sometimes, it leaves me bewildered.  Then there's most of the time (like now), when I just can say, "Huh?".  LOL!

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   WOW , so much I could

   WOW , so much I could say

..... how about this, You are why I wrote that !

think about it again , slowly

( yeah WTF , we don't know shit )    


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
 WOW , so much I could say

..... how about this, You are why I wrote that !

Just for me?  Well, I'm flattered!Smile

Quote:
think about it again , slowly

Slowly is the only way I ever think.  Thinking ain't my strong suit (but, I can lift heavy things).

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   I love you

   I love you


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Heya

totus_tuus wrote:

Heya JCGadfly!  Hope you don't mind me butting in.

jcgadfly wrote:
In other words, Christians give precedence to the NT.

Of course.  The NT is, in the words of St Jerome, the OT revealed.  The OT was the promise, the new the fulfillment and realization of that promise.

jcgadfly wrote:
Paul's words may not be in red letters but the majority of Christians I know follow Paul's words over Jesus'.

Where does Paul diverge from the teachings of Jesus?

jcgadfly wrote:
Is it because he wrote the majority of the NT (much of it before the gospels and the Jesus character were thought up)?

Yes, he wrote a good part of the New Testament.  As for Paul writing before the writing of the Gospels, well, you know where I stand on that issue, but for the sake of other readers who don't, lemme just say that the earliest witnesses of the Church (ie, the Church Fathers) simply don't support that assertion.

jcgadfly wrote:
If that's true why do Christians get their panties in such a bunch when I say that Paul created christianity?

'Cause it just ain't so.  The Church was founded by Jesus Christ.  Paul was certainly one of the great forces behind the success of the early Church, though

Not a problem TT,

1. Christians give precedence to the NT to the exclusion of the OT? That seems to be what the guy I responded to is saying despite his insistence that the Bible should be taken as a whole.

2. Where did Paul diverge from the teachings of Jesus?

Jesus - "Think not that I have come to destroy the Law. I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it."

Paul - "You are under grace and not under the Law...Where there is no Law, there is no transgression"

3. Then again the early church fathers (if we're talking about the ones who were around within a couple of generations of the apostles) were reading Paul's stuff for twenty years before the Gospels were written.

4. The story you claim (where Jesus created the church and gave its control to Peter) was written well after all of Paul's stuff was written. As Paul wrote about christ and the operations of Christian churches, I think it's safe to say that Paul created what is called Christianity.   

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: You

irrespective wrote:

You should really try to understand Christianity BEFORE you critique it.

There are many Atheists on this forum who have at one time been Christians or Theists. I believe those ex-Christians or ex-Theists do understand Christianity so well that they reject it.

We critique all aspects of Christianity that we find flawed. We critique those things which other Christians say are the truth. We critique Jesus, the Bible and the current "leaders" of the Christian churches because of those hideous flaws.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe my humor was more rational and logical than your previous post, "No Christian believes that...".

To say what you said was conceited, arrogant and ignorant.

To make naked assertions and call people names certainly isn't a rational response either.  Geez.  I thought you guys could do better than this.

I certainly did not call you names. If I were to call you names I would have used poo-poo head or ignoramusoafus.

 I merely explained that your claim "No Christians believe that..." was an ignorant, arrogant and conceited.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote: First

irrespective wrote:
First of all, if you really cared at all about truth you would actually become familiar with Christianity's actual stance on the Bible.

You keep speaking as if Christianity is one big church that every single Christian attends.

The thing I find funny about Christianity is that there are thousands of different churches with different interpretations of the Bible.

I've seen many times where church members don't like what one church "says" and they quit and go to another church. I've seen people start their own church after they go out and get "certified" as a pastor or what ever. All this because they "disputed" the interpretation of the "word of god".

Quote:
Secondly, I never said what you put in quotations as my statement, and I don't know of any traditional Christians who would say that.

 You keep speaking in absolutes like you went out and polled all the "traditional Christians".

 

Quote:
Thirdly, Christians see no discrepancy between what Paul wrote and what Jesus said...  But last time I checked we don't put Paul's words in red, so I don't see how we emphasize his teachings more than Jesus'.

There you go again. This time you actually said "we" and spoke as if you were speaking for ALL Christians. Is there some thing we don't know about you? Are you part of a collective? Do all the Christians speak to you? Do you hear voices in your head?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jcgadfly,   I do read what

Jcgadfly,

 

I do read what I write..at least twice.  Once when I write it and second when I proofread.  What I was objecting to was the idea that Christians do not find meaning in the OT.  This was implied by your supposed quotation of me which was not a quotation at all--it was at best a poor paraphrase of my thoughts (I am referring here specifically to the fiinal part of the quotation).  Yes we give precedence to the NT over the OT because we view it as a more advanced revelation to a particular group of people (Christians).  That doesn't mean we cannot nor do find meaning in the OT.  But when it comes to parts of the OT, specifically those dealing with the Israelites in specific situations, we do not as a general rule take those parts and apply them without regard for history to our present situation.  Read a book on Christian hermeneutics and it will go into great depth about the whats, wheres, hows and whys of this general principle.

 

As to Paul writing his epistles before Christ was even "invented", Galatians is considered one of Paul's first epistles and he mentions Christ in it on more than one occasion, referring to him as a human being born of a woman and being crucified, so clearly traditions about Jesus were around before Paul wrote his epistles.  Your attempt at showing Paul in divergence from Jesus is lame.  It is Paul's contention that Christ IS the fulfillment of the law, which coheres perfectly with what Jesus said in Matthew 5.  He was saying that he was not there to do away with the Torah as invalid, but he was there to fulfill it.  That word "fulfill" throughout the NT has the concept of eschatological fulfillment lurking behind it, and Paul clearly interpreted Jesus as saying there that his ministry, death, and resurrection comprised the eschatological fulfillment of the Torah--God's covenant with the nation of Israel.  What is fulfilled has accomplished its purpose and is therefore no longer necessary, which happens to be Paul's argument in Galatians.


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There you go again.

Quote:

There you go again. This time you actually said "we" and spoke as if you were speaking for ALL Christians. Is there some thing we don't know about you? Are you part of a collective? Do all the Christians speak to you? Do you hear voices in your head?

 

Earlier in that post I believe I clarified that I was referring to traditional Christianity.  Yes I am aware that some sectors of "liberal" Christianity would see a divergence between Paul and Jesus, but tradtional Christianity has always defended Paul's teaching as in line with Christ's own teaching.  If you would like to present evidence where I have misrepresented the traditional Christian position feel free, otherwise your innuendos that I am are irrelevant.  I believe I can accurately describe traditional Christian belief because I have studied it since my early teens and consider myself fairly well-read in that area.  I have studied many different sectors of Christianity.  When I was in seminary I read thousands of pages of Systematic Theology from all different perspectives.  Christianity is a variegated religion for sure, but there are common threads that run through all the various denominations that can be spoken of and described.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
irrespective

irrespective wrote:

Jcgadfly,

 

I do read what I write..at least twice.  Once when I write it and second when I proofread.  What I was objecting to was the idea that Christians do not find meaning in the OT.  This was implied by your supposed quotation of me which was not a quotation at all--it was at best a poor paraphrase of my thoughts (I am referring here specifically to the fiinal part of the quotation).  Yes we give precedence to the NT over the OT because we view it as a more advanced revelation to a particular group of people (Christians).  That doesn't mean we cannot nor do find meaning in the OT.  But when it comes to parts of the OT, specifically those dealing with the Israelites in specific situations, we do not as a general rule take those parts and apply them without regard for history to our present situation.  Read a book on Christian hermeneutics and it will go into great depth about the whats, wheres, hows and whys of this general principle.

 

As to Paul writing his epistles before Christ was even "invented", Galatians is considered one of Paul's first epistles and he mentions Christ in it on more than one occasion, referring to him as a human being born of a woman and being crucified, so clearly traditions about Jesus were around before Paul wrote his epistles.  Your attempt at showing Paul in divergence from Jesus is lame.  It is Paul's contention that Christ IS the fulfillment of the law, which coheres perfectly with what Jesus said in Matthew 5.  He was saying that he was not there to do away with the Torah as invalid, but he was there to fulfill it.  That word "fulfill" throughout the NT has the concept of eschatological fulfillment lurking behind it, and Paul clearly interpreted Jesus as saying there that his ministry, death, and resurrection comprised the eschatological fulfillment of the Torah--God's covenant with the nation of Israel.  What is fulfilled has accomplished its purpose and is therefore no longer necessary, which happens to be Paul's argument in Galatians.

Now you're misquoting me.

I neve said that Paul wrote before Christ was invented. I said Paul's stuff was written before the Jesus character was invented by the Gospel writers.

That Paul mentioned Christ is not a problem as he created Christianity (probably building on Gnostic teachings). The times he used the name of Jesus (I think there were a few) I believe he was using it as a title - Jesus Christ=="anointed deliverer/savior".

The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (my view only afaik) is that the writers found a rabbi named Yeshua that they liked and patterned the Jesus charaacter on that person to put a human face on Paul's concept. 

Paul coheres with the Gospels in the same way as the Gospels are coherent with the messianic prohecy of the OT. They read backwards and adjusted their writing to fit.

It may not be the correct view but it's a lot easier than believing that God inspired all these guys over many years to write a coherent narrative.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
irrespective wrote:Earlier

irrespective wrote:
Earlier in that post I believe I clarified that I was referring to traditional Christianity.  Yes I am aware that some sectors of "liberal" Christianity would see a divergence between Paul and Jesus, but tradtional Christianity has always defended Paul's teaching as in line with Christ's own teaching.  If you would like to present evidence where I have misrepresented the traditional Christian position feel free, otherwise your innuendos that I am are irrelevant.  I believe I can accurately describe traditional Christian belief because I have studied it since my early teens and consider myself fairly well-read in that area.  I have studied many different sectors of Christianity.  When I was in seminary I read thousands of pages of Systematic Theology from all different perspectives.  Christianity is a variegated religion for sure, but there are common threads that run through all the various denominations that can be spoken of and described.

 

Is Traditional Christianity a denomination?

 

This quote sums up how I feel about traditions:

"Every tradition grows ever more venerable - the more remote its origin, the more confused that origin is. The reverence due to it increases from generation to generation. The tradition finally becomes holy and inspires awe".

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, Human, All Too Human

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   old wise men ... there

   old wise men ... there was moses, buddha, jesus, etc,  eventually came NIETZSCHE , ( then me and you ? hee hee )