I will be reading the Qur’an on Saturday

Brian wrote:

Yeah, it is too bad Muslims can't be as civilized as Christians, who sublimate their desire for revenge into fevered and eagerly anticipated imaginings of the tortures God will inflict on us scoffers for our impious regard for their Bible. It will be a giant step for Islam when they learn they can mask their cowardice as letting God reap his vengeance while they get to watch and laugh.

Have you ever actually, you know, talked to any Christians? Not Westboro Baptist or Florida Dove Outreach types, but the sane ones?

Well Dang wrote:

Not quite, see people are the problem, wheter religious or not, religion in that people fail to understand it's interpretations or purposefully change it for whatevereason is ugly...but usually it's peaceful, and encourages good will toward others, generosity etc.

Now I'm sure we all know some jerk at school, work or whatnot who is very non-religious and is an asshole (hitler, mussolini, mao, stalin) and there are those who are zealously religious but lack knowledge.So let's be honest, sarcastic, sadistic, malice intended, angry people suck.

No. It is precisely religion that is the problem. Hitler, Stalin, et al. outlawed religion because it competed with them for authoritarian power. In essence, they made themselves the religion. The key difference is that their power lasted only as long as they did. Cults of personality depend on the personality. Religion depends on no one. No matter who died, religion would feel no impact. It is authoritarianism centralized in a non-existent being; therefore, it is not really centralized. It cannot die.

You are aware that it is the Catholic Church that St. P set up for JC right? And that all the supposed christian outlets now are protestant or derivations thereof, i.e., offshoot of the Catholic Church. There is no existing denomination since JC's time other than the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox would make the claim to be next oldest and they split centuries after St. Paul's Cathedral went up. So, the CC is the OG, dig? So all you haters best shaddup. Bet you wouldn't be talking so much trash if we still had the inquisition. As for early christians being crucified, I refer you to the excellent "Decline of the Ancient World", by Arnold Hugh Martin Jones, Cambridge U. chair for history. You will learn therein that early christians were but one sect striving amongst many gnostic and other pagan sects to gain traction or curry favor with the principate ceasars and emperors (yes, an emperor could have many ceasars working for him essentially as regional governors, unless the emperor was augustii but that is a different matter and was increasingly rare leading up to 476), so, in other words, if the sects were prosecuting amongst themselves, and christianity was a sect in those times, it was secondary to the repression by the Romans who lumped them all in the same boat. It really would be nice if people actually studied history. Another fine example of how our democracy has devolved into an idiocracy--and it's striking how closely America's decline parallels Rome's, but again, a discussion for another time. As for Tridentine masses, those haven't been performed for a while, and since Vatican II it is quite rare. There is one place somewhere here in Southern Cali where it is done and the priest had to fight to do so, but this is the oddity in the United States. Also, in the rest of the Catholic world it makes no sense to read mass in any language but the vernacular since to do other would to alienate local parishes. And as for the man in the pointy hat, he's called the Pope, or pontiff, and is the direct officeholder descendant of St. Peter, he's in fact the 265th person to hold the office. How's that for history. Take that Billy Grahm Jr. Or Jesse Jackson Jr., or Oral Roberts, etc., etc., etc., Oh, you may not be aware of this, but many agnostics know the texts better than the faithful. How do you think many became agnostics including myself? We saw the contradictions.

You Say What? wrote:

Problem is, the world think that the catholic church speaks for the christian God.

Catholics like to point to Matthew 16:18 when Jesus tells Peter truly God gave you this relevation, but Peter was not considered to be above the other disciples. Jesus even said so. In fact, the RC church had to go back and put in the succession centuries later. Another problem, if there is no papal effort then why did Paul rebuke Peter? Obviously Peter was in the wrong. More is written in the New Testament by Paul than Peter. Lastly, Peter was married and when it talks of false religions that forbade marriage. If it is true that Catholics were at the time after Christ's death, then wasn't the Bible discounthing this very belief that were practicing, even today. It calls them a false religion.

Catholics have added to and changed claims thoughout and trotted out writers that do give credenece to the RC church but the problem was the authority come from the RC church and not the Bible for they are to be accountable.

Your claim that all protestant religions have come from being an offshoot of the RC church is the greatest lie that the RC church has passed off to the world. There are many writings and evangelicals that were following direct biblical teachings (this is why Roman Catholics have a hard time with sola scriptora or scripture only teaching). The RC church persecuted them. Jesus never intended his faith to become a government of any sort but what do you have with the country known as Vatican City, the Holy Roman Empire and the killings from the Crusades.

Your claim that all protestant beliefs came as an offshoot of catholicy is like claiming you became a runner because Phidippides ran from Marathon to tell the news of a greek victory.

The greatest lie that the world has swallowed is that the Roman Catholic church is the church Jesus founded. That is a lie by Satan, the great deciever. In the Book of Revelations it speaks of the whore of Babylon and that what the RC church is. If you've ever read the Bible, no one could argue that the two beliefs are the same, yet many of todays evangelical and bible churches are the teachings of 2,000 years ago.

No doubt that christians also want to rule the world, but ruling the world is not in line with the teachings of Christ. Christ teaches us to be servants and slaves rather than power hungry political or religious fascists.

You Say What? wrote:

Catholics are the biggest joke. 99% can't quote anything out the bible as they just listen to a guy in a pointy hat speaking latin that they don't understand. In fact, if the ever did read it they would see they've been going counter to what it says for 2000 years. Infant baptism? Bowing to statues, paying for pentance (sic), purgatory, forbiding clergy to marry, confession to priest,... etc.

In fact, catholism had the crusades that the muslims still bring up. Thus, making them no better.

Catholicy killed true christians that wouldn't bow to the pope. Forbid owning a bible upon penalty of death.

WHICH Bible, genius???

Low Road Joe Torquemada wrote:

You are aware that it is the Catholic Church that St. P set up for JC right? And that all the supposed christian outlets now are protestant or derivations thereof, i.e., offshoot of the Catholic Church. There is no existing denomination since JC's time other than the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox would make the claim to be next oldest and they split centuries after St. Paul's Cathedral went up.

No, we Orthodox make the claim that we are the Catholic Church, we alone, and the Roman church is a 956 year old schism. In fact, we'd use the name Catholic Church more often if the Roman church hadn't dragged the name through the mud.

Brian wrote:

Yeah, it is too bad Muslims can't be as civilized as Christians, who sublimate their desire for revenge into fevered and eagerly anticipated imaginings of the tortures God will inflict on us scoffers for our impious regard for their Bible. It will be a giant step for Islam when they learn they can mask their cowardice as letting God reap his vengeance while they get to watch and laugh.

Umm . . . the bolded might apply to some who call themselves Christian, but in no unbiased persons opinion would they imply that this is anything close to a majority view. I suggest, therefore, that you make or stick to some other excuse or excuses for not obeying the gospel.

"Say unto them, as I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11

If God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked then I would (and do) question the authenticity of that persons faith who does. Nevertheless, God will oblige those who reject Him by allowing them a place to go where His manifest presence is not, namely, Hell. I think it stinks, and apparently so does God.

The trouble with Christianity is when Jesus's followers do not follow him, nor the Bible, well enough.

The trouble with Islam is when Muslims follow Mohammed and the Qu'ran too well.

fasdf wrote:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (Koran 2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

and then there was this Jewish guy--who happens to be the incarnate Crist--who said, "I am they way, the truth, and the life. NO ONE can enter heaven except through me.". Trumps the koran.

How about, there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of a personal God, and no evidence that he wrote or dictated any of our books. How's that? Or, the concept of vicarious redemption through the torturous human sacrifice of a scapegoat is a disgusting concept to embrace?

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

--Jesus, Luke 19:27

chauncey wrote:

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

--Jesus, Luke 19:27

Sounds like Obama

What Smith did with the Book of Mormon isn't that different than what several writers in the canonical bible did (Daniel, several pseuepigraphal letters of Paul, The Pastorals, etc.). You have novel religious views too historically late to be taken seriously as revelation, so you write a book, but append the name of an earlier worthy to it so it will be taken seriously. Then you try to put a bunch of stuff in the text to make it appear that is isn't a forgery but modern textual analysis will show it clearly is.

Of course, Christian critics of the Book of Mormon who can see this quite clearly in the Mormon case are just blind to the exact same evidence in the Christian case.

You Say What? wrote:

Catholics are the biggest joke. 99% can't quote anything out the bible as they just listen to a guy in a pointy hat speaking latin that they don't understand. In fact, if the ever did read it they would see they've been going counter to what it says for 2000 years. Infant baptism? Bowing to statues, paying for pentance (sic), purgatory, forbiding clergy to marry, confession to priest,... etc.

In fact, catholism had the crusades that the muslims still bring up. Thus, making them no better.

Catholicy killed true christians that wouldn't bow to the pope. Forbid owning a bible upon penalty of death.

Protestants shouldn't feel too proud of themselves. As Mencken said "Before Luther you had a pope on the seven hills of Rome. Now you have a pope on every hill in Tennessee".

At least Catholics don't make an idol of the Bible and insist against all evidence on its inerrancy. And they don't "know the Bible" the way evangelicals do, which is they have a preconceived idea of what it says and then cherry pick verses out of context to suit whatever dogma they have in mind. I mean, has opening up the Bible to the rabble led to anymore doctrinal conformity, as Luther thought the "plain sense" of the text would be obvious to all? Boy, was he mistaken. I'd say the catholics were precient about what would happen when the rabble got hold of such a contradictory and confusing document (whaich one would expect from a library of separate books that may or may not have known about the others and were all saying different things to different audiences).

"Have you ever actually, you know, talked to any Christians? Not Westboro Baptist or Florida Dove Outreach types, but the sane ones?"

Well of course I have. The "sane" ones are making a virtue of necessity. This is the power of Christianity - the power to make it say whatever you want it to say when you are under the sway of the overwhelming evidence for the power of rationalism. If only Islam could be so "enlightened". Only evangelicals are worth taking seriously. "Liberal" christians are just compartmentalizing secularists like me. If a "Christian" doesn't believe something that an atheist like me couldn't also believe with no need for a God, I don't really see any reason to take their Christianity seriously (and that is a compliment!)

But of course, people who believe in Satan and Hell and punishment for doctrinal error and sin FAR OUTNUMBER these moderates.

According to whose definition of "evidence"? Oh! Yours! Right. Well, how do you deal with that pesky little book? Oh! Brilliant! "There's no evidence that He wrote or dictated any books." Well, it's good that that has been sufficiently dealt with now, huh?

Yeah, someone laying down their life to save others is just sickening, isn't it? Well, now you've dealt with everything, haven't you? P.S. Don't tell this to the families of Medal of Honor winners.

I feel it's better to put everything in context:

1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.

2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchæus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.

3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.

4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.

5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchæus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.

6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.

7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.

8 And Zacchæus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

28 ¶And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

Notice, if you will, verse 10. God hates and wants to kill people soooo much that he sent His only Son to seek and save that which was lost. God sure has a funny way of hating people, wouldn't you say??? Or . . . perhaps you are just purposely being a weee bit shallow so you can hang on to your life and live it the way you want? Yeah, there is probably something to explore there.

The thing that always struck me about this parable is how positively feudal it is in outlook. The fact that Jesus told it in a manner in which he knew his audience would understand and sympathize with the message just reveals how dated jesus' message is.

Wouldn't jesus have acknowledged the servant for his civil disobedience? wouldn't jesus' parable been better if he'd had the ungrateful servant raise the oppressed citizenry in revolt? I mean, after all, that was what jesus ministry itself was all about. He was killed for inciting rebellion.

Brent,

With the "intellect" on this board, you would think that people could, well think

Where in verse 10 does it say that God hates people. Man chose to sin and created that divide between God and Man. That is the whole point of the Christian faith that God so loved us that he would be willing to give his own son up for death so that people who choose to accept that will be saved from the sin that they created.

Brian,

The days of Moses are over, meaning that all men who seek have access to God. No need for confession to another man for forgiveness. Only God can forgive sin.

Also, your argument about catholics not knowing the Bible is about as dumb as a cyclist biking 42km wondering why the NYC Marathon people won't award him the win. Jesus constantly refered to Scripture as the basis for belief. He always asked "Do the Scriptures not say..."

If you had a surgeon as ill-equipped and informed as the atheists, agnostics and catholics on this board, you'd be flatlining before the first cut was made.

Okay, let's deal with the evidence for miracles. I'll paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, who points a finer point on it than I could:

Anyone who sees an apparent miracle, or suspension of the laws of physics (such as the turning of water into wine, the raising of the dead, walking on water), must ask himself this question: Were the laws of physics suspended, and moreover suspended in my favor, in a way in which I approve, or am I under a misapprehension?

Now, take those same miracle claims and put them in a bronze age book, 2000 years before the scientific age, described decades after their supposed occurrence, described by non-eye-witnesses, and filtered down through dozens of revisions, poor translations, and manuscripts, and the question becomes far, far more pointed.

No, someone laying down their life to save others is not sickening. However, that's not the case here.

The whole concept of the crucifixion is that we are created sick and commanded to be well. We are born in prison and must earn our way out.

I am condemned for sins I did not commit, and am told I must take part in the torture and sacrifice of a human being in order to atone for these sins. This sacrifice took place before I was born, and I had no say in it. Yet I am told that I must accept it in order to be forgiven for sins I have not committed. If I accept, I get eternal happiness. If I decide I want no part of this torture and murder, then I can go straight to hell. What a bargain.

Also, it IS sickening to think that another person's torture can absolve you of your sins. That practice is called scapegoating.